







































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































* 

* 


J? ' t %u WtOSSrS A V^V*« ^ 
A <!\ # o• * 4 ,0^ ^c> vf«** A A* '•.*• «C* 

«A # i*«* «£* (v 0 o * • * jA * i 1 * * '•^vl (r o 0 

4r^>% V « c .«:<^i*. A .‘>^>:* V -4 c 


•w 


bK 

r ^ : *° % : 3 

^^ °o **»'** ^p° ^ ** 

*> V s »1V°* C> jflr ••,!£'♦ V v *'**' CV 


A* . 

> o. 


^ A* * 

V>/> <t 


«CV 



• TV AT * 

L** c5^ * ' 

u <J W . - 


* <P. 

* A 

,«. v ''d. ♦AMEN*' % . 

,cr \s ‘^v* A 
,6* .•■•• **b a 

1 °.. * 


.V-L * 

* V %• • 



* ^ A * 
: vA • 



«b* . 

#%, v 

°o.‘‘ir,"’'o° *- * 

**cx A* %*•• 

% V < 4 ? S AMS' . +. A’ 

: :Ml|- V* 

❖ V ^v #W** 


A ^ - < ^nn^ 7 * a j 

«* «v *.^P£r,* V 

<■. -«■.". » ,Cs <3. *'SvT* A 

A’ .»••. <K cy „•«•. ^o A 

V •Wfeu*. V & /^rv- ° *-r ♦* 





1 • O. 



A ^.* 4 A cr % v!Pf« a o ••* •• a* 

A* •*'** «£. A <.<>*•« ’^Q A* A 

♦W^5L* v. c v •jtfSSW^ AJ A ♦w^'' 0 • 


^0 


A ♦ 


*• ^ A- . 

* Cl «* 

^ '•*«’ <r O*. '»>’* A 1 
L V »’*»* Lv 

. v _ vvw ® % 

• C,*' \ A, ^' % ••., 

■f 3 * .°j^W^ b O \r 

«A^a5V> ^ Lo< 



o • (k 



o V 

' * 
•i* **#■»* AW 

^ <A * • • , v-^ 



« <L^ O < 

0 <r °* *• 

/ »*•”- c. 

-*L A « ,VVa. V 

w :»m: ^ 

^ V '.eBy * # 

»v» K ^ *3iNfr« „ ^ 
^ ^r. v • *«® A 

0 /^SW* ^ A* * v 



A °0^ 0> ^ *.. 

-Jk. v ^ V v •**•# c>. -0^ *1^/-*- %> 

: :JS|: W ;^K: "l 

/ ^ ^f> J? 'V ^ v \> °«^^** ^ 

& , i ♦ # 4 A o * # # *^q A 1 1 # * A 0 

'/V7-f.... ^ * , r . C, * L-S*^ ‘ «r . 1 i'V- V “ ' «£ /*w 0 



^0^ 


a v . e * * ^ 

; *^55^1% °o 4 

•a^hIV* ^ A ' 

• Or ® 



°* ^ °o "* 

V 4p • 

1 ^ A ♦* 

: w • 

* A % ♦♦ ^ *. 

^ *• * - ^ .i»*® ^ A 

r S*r/T?/Z ’ fvr C 

• ,<’% '•• 


•• V 

vV <s 

* A ^rv 

. ^ ^ r v ''• w ^ ,v ^ v A' 5 ** 

0 o. «'®** 4 A <» 4,0 • 4 * A^ ^ A 

AV *- ^ A .*»••. ^ a % 

° A* A 
:<* ■• *bv* 



v* A ^ « 

<^, ^ 'b, A b °o *5^V ^ 

_ a'A v, v **#*£*• ^ .A ^ 






* A 

* C/ 'Cj* • 

* ^ 

o'' o®*** *b 

% ’^is&Xrk* - „* 


*. 

/ V*--” f 

^ *vafc»r. ^ * ,\ 


' y a^ 




*A 

* ^ % 

A v ,.‘A*, % °*\/ „jr*. "\ '*’*^ ’" ,. 

^ .v^v- 4fl^>;*. ^ 




by 


%**"’*’ *° v** 

’ * °- ^ aT vL^L^ > 

°*o* * - 

o a«* ; 

„* ^ ^ A 

*-TTT* A <* 'o, * * .0^ 

* V % r °* 6 
- A 4 %> ^ C oC^ 

o V * 4 •** Cr * ^ 

*• / \ '*5 
•••• .»* ®* - 

„ V C' 

; ^ > •jflfe' ^ *♦ -W£ ^ 

® ^PV ” *~ V'V 

* ^ syilPv ^ ~\ \\!SStj x 





»£*IS a '' «? r ^ f'** ’% 

_ * *r0y/Pj r ♦ rv <** * vXvNvS* * NT ^ * ^Z/y/Pdr* r\ 

<3. *011* aP * e H O 9 .<y o * * I 1 * aP $> 

'••, -V .0* .VV''* > . *••. c> .9’ AVI/. 

Va» ^ a ♦*4§fe'* ^s. ^ ♦^V/h!” ^ / *V§fe'. < 

*• ■Xv’ '^sk' W* 4« t; ^ «M»||: 

£“^>7 * 4.A « * C ,r> * v^x « _ 


J X . - --- - ° O 

'v ^ ° 

^> ^7vT* A <> '«>• »’ 

' 9 ' *'*M?pL' % 






e \V^ 

vV V, 


.<? ^ 




« o 

* <v & ° 


^V .-. V /.-%%,'•*v.—.s /. 

bt.^ \o< fX^fe: %t^ .'^^* rX 


0 v^ 


A ^ ^U\\\vr ^ jv ^ . '£*'// 1 ❖ A ** 

• • / ^ A n * • o^. .o' '♦ 



* 


• •« ’ .I-* %. 

V ,'•<>, c* 

. ^ a- .v|#y» 

: rv ismMa''. 





















THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 








■ 
































































































































































































































































































































S 




















































THE DEFENCE 


OF 


PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

BEFORE 


THE PRESBYTERY OF YEW YORK 


December 13, D, 15, and 19, 1892 


NEW YORK 

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
1892 




Copyright, 1892, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 


TN EXCHANGE 

12 0 


< c ( 


CONTESTS 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

PAGES 

(1) A court of Jesus Christ; (2) The character of the argument of 
the prosecution; (3) The serious charges not offered for proba¬ 
tion ; (4) The unlawful use of the proofs from Holy Scripture 
and the Standards; (5) The contempt of court in the argument 
upon Charges IV. and VII. ; (6) The neglect of the Standards of 
the Church; (7) The evidence from the writings of the defend¬ 
ant ; (8) The prosecution have no case, .... vii-xx 


I.—The Rule of Faith. 

(1) Dangerous errors; (2) A double rule; (3) System of doctrine; 

(4) The Constitution a compact; (5) The right of making ex¬ 
planations, .1-21 


XX.—Is the Bible the only Fountain of Divine Authority? 

(1) Analysis of Charges I. and II. ; (2) The evidence offered by the 
prosecution from Holy Scripture tested ; (3) Their evidence from 
the Westminster Standards reviewed,.21-44 


III.— The Reason. 

(1) The Westminster doctrine ; (2) The Biblical doctrine ; (3) The evi¬ 
dence from Christian experience; (4) The case of Martineau, 45-67 


TV— The Church. 

(1) The Westminster doctrine; (2) The Biblical doctrine; (3) The 
testimony of Christian experience; (4) The case of Newman; 

(5) The case of Spurgeon; (6) Do we co-ordinate the Bible, the 
Church, and the Reason?.67-83 



VI 


CONTENTS 




V. — The Inerrancy of Holy Scripture. 

PAGES 

(1) Analysis of Charge III. ; (2) The deliverance of the General Assem¬ 
bly respecting errors in Holy Scripture ; (3) Plenary inspiration ; 

(4) “ The word of God written (5) “ Is” or “ contains” the word 
of God? (6) “Immediately inspired ;” (7) “Kept pure in all ages 
(8) Some of the errors recognized by Christian scholars, . 84-115 


VI.— The Authenticity of Holy Scripture. 

(1) Analysis of Charge IV. ; (2) The argument from the Westmin¬ 
ster Confession; (3) Consent of all the parts; (4) The infallible 
rule of interpretation; (5) The dogmatic bridge; (6) The testi¬ 
mony of scholars,.115-128 

VII.— Who Wrote Isaiah ? 

(1) Analysis of Charge V. ; (2) The traditional theory; (3) The testi¬ 
mony of the Old Testament; (4) The argument from language; 

(5) The argument from style; (6) The argument from Biblical 
theology ; (7) The historical situation ; (8) The argument from the 
New Testament; ( 9 ) Other anonymous prophecies ; (10) Summary 
of results,.128-151 


VIII. —Progressive Sanctification after Death. 

(1) Analysis of Charge VI. ; (2) The Westminster doctrine; (3) The 
Biblical doctrine; (4) The testimony of the Church; (5) The doc¬ 
trine of sanctification; (6) The salvation of infants and incapa- 
bles; (7) The redemption of the heathen ; (8) The Middle State 
attractive; (9) Incitement to holy endeavor, , . . 151-182 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


Mr. Moderator, Ministers and Elders of the Presbytery of 
New York. 

We have at last reached the stage in this protracted process 
when the defence can lawfully be made. I stand before a court 
of the Church where the same general principles of jurisprudence 
govern the procedure as those which are followed in the civil 
courts; but where there are circumstances and usages which 
make the administration of justice complex and difficult. This 
court is not; only a court, it is a Presbytery, composed of min¬ 
isters and representative elders within the city of New York, 
of the Presbyterian faith and order. You are accustomed to 
sit as a deliberative body and as an executive body. You are 
not accustomed to sit as a judicial body. Therefore there is 
great danger lest you unconsciously merge your functions and 
duties as judges in the more comprehensive and more familiar 
functions and duties of Presbyters. It will be necessary for 
you to free your minds of every feeling of party, every prejudice 
of opinion, every anxiety as to supposed perils to the Church, 
any and every thing that might influence your decision apart 
from the merits of the case; and you should concentrate your 
attention upon the Charges which have been offered for proba¬ 
tion, the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution 
and the defence, the arguments which are made to prove and 
disprove the Charges, and the rulings of the court itself, and 
make your verdict on these grounds, and on these alone. The 
theory of Presbyterianism is that you are now sitting as a 
court of Jesus Christ, that our King Messiah is present with us 
by His Spirit, to guide you in your decisions. Let me beg you 
to open your minds and your hearts to His gracious influence, 
and so make an equitable decision which will voice your con- 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


viii 

scientious convictions, and will show to the world that the Pres¬ 
byterian theory is no mere illusion and delusion, but an expres¬ 
sion of the experience of the Church in reality and in fact. 
The defendant would welcome the voice of Jesus Christ even if 
it should condemn him and humble him to the dust, for the 
Master’s decision could be no other than a heavenly discipline. 
He declines to listen to any other voice in the determination of 
the questions now at issue. You cannot afford to give any 
other decision than that which our King and Saviour gives. 

Let me first call your attention to the argument of the prose¬ 
cution, and remove from the case a mass of irrelevant material 
which has been introduced into it. We shall then be prepared 
to consider the real case. 

Dr. Birch gave you an opening address of more than three 
hours’ duration. I listened attentively to it, and saw that the 
speaker was honest, sincere, and fervent, and that he was labor¬ 
ing under the impression that he was doing God service. I 
have read it, and have found astonishing exegesis, unintelli¬ 
gent reading of lexicons, an amusing resort to heathen oracles, 
unlimited assertions of dangerous errors in the writings of Pro¬ 
fessor Briggs, but I cannot find in it any serious attempt to 
prove the Charges. 

Mr. McCook gave you an argument of more than two hours, 
which was forceful, plausible, and specious, but which for the 
most part soared in the regions of abstract thought, far above 
and beyond what the prosecution, to use the language of an 
eminent member of the court, “were put up to do.” I listened 
to the argument with the closest attention. Its subtle analyses 
of hypothetical premises, its simple-minded substitution of in¬ 
ferences from the language of the defendant for that language 
itself, its delicate balancing upon imaginary lines stretched 
from speculative piers, the cool assumption of its logic and the 
condensed heat of its rhetoric, all remind us of the intellectual 
processes of a scholastic theologian rather than of a lawyer or a 
man of affairs. This argument will receive the attention it 
deserves. 

I. The prosecution, judging from their argument, have made 
a very unfortunate mistake in the selection of the Charges which 
they submitted for probation. They tell us of far more serious 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


IX 


Charges than those contained in the six Charges they were 
directed to prove. The Presbytery will remember, in the 
Preamble to the original Charges, they asserted that the teach¬ 
ings of the Inaugural Address “ respecting miracles, the original 
condition of man, the nature of sin, race redemption, and Dr. 
Briggs’ scheme of Biblical theology in general are not in har¬ 
mony with the Scriptures and are calculated to weaken confi¬ 
dence in the Word of God and to encourage presumption on the 
clemency and long-suffering of Godand' they also claimed 
“ that the erroneous and ill-advised utterances of Dr. Briggs in 
the Inaugural Address have seriously disturbed the peace of the 
Church.” I objected to these statements in my Response of 
November 4th, 1891, as follows: 

“I object (1) that, if there are any such errors contained in my In¬ 
augural Address as the committee allege in the preamble of their Report, it 
was their duty to formulate them into Charges and specifications suffi¬ 
cient in form and in legal effect. 

“ (2) That, if the committee did not think best so to do, they should 
have refrained from alleging doctrinal errors which they did not propose 
to submit for probation, and which, so alleged without opportunity of 
refutation, seem calculated to exert prejudice against me in the minds 
of the members of the court. 

“ (3) That, if, as the Report alleges, ‘the erroneous and ill-advised 
utterances of Dr. Briggs in the Inaugural Address have seriously disturbed 
the peace of the Church,’ and these constitute a ‘grave offence against 
the peace of the Church, ’ it was the duty of the committee to formulate 
this grave offence into a Charge and specification, ‘sufficient in form 
and legal effect. ’ * 

“ (4) That, if it were not deemed best so to do, the Report should have 
refrained from alleging a grave offence which was not proposed for 
probation, the allegation of which might prejudice the decision of 
those Charges and specifications offered for probation ” (‘ 4 The Case, ” 
pp. 19, 20). 

In their Appeal before the last General Assembly, the prose¬ 
cution objected to this Response to the Preamble, on the ground 
that the “ so-called preamble was no part of the said Charges 
and specifications, and was not served upon the said Dr. Briggs 
as a portion of the said Charges and specifications to which he 
was cited to plead.” The General Assembly sustained this 
formal objection. 

And now what do we see? The prosecution have wisely 


X 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


refrained from making any such statements in connection 
with the Amended Charges; hut they renew them in a more 
offensive and a more extended form in their Argument. Is that 
fair? Is it candid? Is it honorable thus to try to prejudice 
the court by assertions of serious errors which they do not pro¬ 
pose to prove? To any one who reads with attention the argu¬ 
ment of the theologian who speaks in Mr. McCook, it will be 
evident that he is not so much concerned with the errors named 
in the Charges, as with other alleged errors of a still more 
serious character. It is not the Holy Scripture for which he 
is concerned, or the Westminster Standards; but the system of 
dogma of his school of theology, which he apprehends the 
Biblical Theology of Professor Briggs will surely destroy, unless 
the Presbyterian Church can be persuaded to discredit Professor 
Briggs. See how naively he assumes that I am attacking the 
citadel of Christianity when I said in the Inaugural: 

“Criticism is at work with fire and knife. Let us cut down every¬ 
thing that is dead and harmful, every kind of dead orthodoxy, every 
species of effete ecclesiasticism, all merely formal morality, all those 
dry and brittle fences, that constitute denominationalism, and are the 
barriers of Church Unity.” 

Poor man! Is his life so steeped in a dogmatic faith, that 
he knows not the important difference between the three things, 
Bible, creed, and system of dogma? Are the Bible and creed 
summed up to him in the scholastic forms of a system of 
dogma? I pointed out this difference in the letter of acceptance 
of the Edward Robinson Chair, which I read in evidence, but 
he ignores it. Those things which are to me dead orthodoxy, 
effete ecclesiasticism, formal morality, denominationalism, are 
to him Presbyterianism and Christianity. He doubtless agrees 
with a recently uttered opinion, that “ Dogma is more impor¬ 
tant than religious experience,” and if he were forced to choose 
would deliberately choose dogma rather than Christian life. 

I shall not take the time of the judicatory by calling atten¬ 
tion to the insinuations and statements of larger errors which 
pervade the argument of Mr. McCook, but your attention is 
called to the closing section of that argument, in which an 
attempt is made to explain all the errors imputed to the defen- 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


XI 


dant by the root error of Naturalism, which it is said “in the 
hands of a more logical writer than Professor Briggs, would be 
pushed to far more radical conclusions . . . and will soon leave 
you about as much exclusiveness as Christians, in having the 
oracles of God, as Mahometans or Brahmins have” (p. 46). 

If the prosecution are serious in this statement of the case, 
they are convicted out of their own mouth of gross neglect of 
duty. If they have here struck at the root of all the errors of 
Dr. Briggs, they certainly ought to have put it in a Charge. 
If they made a mistake in the formulation of the original 
Charges, why did they not confess their mistake, abandon the 
old case, and bring in new Charges under a new case? That 
would have been honest, that would have been manly, that 
would have been welcomed by the defendant and all honorable 
men. But to bring such a serious accusation into an argument 
to prove other Charges, which have been recognized as suffi¬ 
cient for probation, is to wrong the defendant and to presume 
upon the patience and indulgence of the court. This new 
charge is utterly and absolutely false. It was forged in the 
brain of its author. It was invented in a diseased mind. You 
have no right as a court to consider it. The laws of evidence 
in all courts, civil and ecclesiastical, require you to blot out 
from the argument any and every reference to other imputed 
errors than those alleged in the Charges. These and these alone 
the prosecution were entitled to prove. 

II. In my Preliminary Objections I called the attention of 
the Presbytery to the fact that the evidences from Holy Scrip¬ 
ture and the Standards had all been placed under the specifica¬ 
tions and so directed against the passages cited from the 
Inaugural; when, by the law of the Church, they ought to have 
been put under the Charges and used solely and alone to prove 
that the doctrines claimed to be essential doctrines of the 
Standards and of Holy Scripture were really and truly such. 
You sustained this objection and directed the prosecution to 
transfer all their proofs from Holy Scripture and the Standards 
from the specifications to the Charges. The prosecution have 
in a most flagrant manner disobeyed your instructions. In the 
argument of Dr. Birch he used the passages of Holy Scripture 
and the Standards for the very purpose you ruled he should not 


xii 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


use them; for he used them to show that his interpretations of 
the utterances of the Inaugural were dangerous errors; but he 
neglected to use them for the purpose you directed him to use 
them, namely, to prove that there are essential doctrines of the 
Holy Scripture and the Standards of our Church, which the 
alleged errors of Dr. Briggs contravene. So far as the argument 
of Mr. McCook is concerned, Holy Scripture is conspicuous by 
its absence; and what need has speculative dogma of the West¬ 
minster Standards? 

The prosecution by this procedure have put themselves in 
these awkward circumstances. 

(1) They have used Scripture and Confession in a way it was 
ruled by the court they should not use it. Therefore their entire 
argument on Holy Scripture and all of their argument from 
the Standards with a very few exceptions should be ruled out 
of court. The argument of Dr. Birch thus shrivels up into 
nothingness. What he tried to prove he had no right to prove; 
and according to the ruling of this court you cannot consider it. 

(2) By neglecting to use Scripture and Confession to prove 
that the doctrines alleged to be essential and necessary articles 
of the Confession are truly such, these essential doctrines are 
not proven, and if they are left destitute of proof, the essential 
premises of the Charges are unproven, and the prosecution have 
no case. You have made your ruling, and if you follow it, as 
you must if you do your duty as judges, you must throw all 
the Charges out of court as unproven in their chief premises. 

(3) The prosecution are guilty of contempt of court, for dis¬ 
regarding the ruling of the court. The court should recognize 
in some proper way this offence against its dignity. 

III. After listening to the Preliminary Objections of the 
defendant, the court directed the prosecuting committee to strike 
out Charges IV. and VII. Dr. Birch obeyed the direction of 
the Presbytery and made no argument upon these Charges. 
But Mr. McCook disobeyed the direction of the Presbytery and 
made elaborate arguments in proof of both of these Charges. 
This must be evident to most of those who heard the argument. 
I shall now try to make it evident to every member of the court. 

Turn to page 27 of the Argument of Mr. McCook in the fifth 
line from the bottom, and you will find the beginning of the 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


xiii 

argument on the fourth Charge which you ordered stricken 
out. It reads as follows: 

“ Professor Briggs has said: ‘ Kuenen lias shown that if we insist upon 
the fulfilment of the details of the predictive prophecy of the Old Testa¬ 
ment, many of the predictions have been reversed by history; and the 
great body of the Messianic prediction has not only never been fulfilled, 
but cannot now be fulfilled, for the reason that its own time has passed 
forever. ’ ” 

Thus he begins with the citation from the Inaugural, and in¬ 
deed the only one given under the fourth Charge. The argument 
of Mr. McCook on the fourth Charge continues through pages 28 
and 29 as far as the middle of page 30. On the second line from 
the bottom of page 28, Mr. McCook says: 

“He [Professor Briggs] still holds to predictive prophecy, but he says, 
of Messianic prophecy, that a large part of it not only has not been ful¬ 
filled, but that from the nature of the case it can never be fulfilled. ” 

This is a renewal of the false and slanderous imputation 
made in the rejected Charge IV., which I have again and again 
repudiated, and which you required them to strike out, in the 
interest of justice. 

On page 30 Mr. McCook says: 

“ But whether it be scholastic or whether it be critical—to deny the 
fulfilment of the divine prediction is to deny that the prophecy is true, 
for it must be either true or false. To deny the fulfilment of prophecy 
is to deny that God is faithful to His promises or His declarations of 
judgment. It is to deny that God is a God of Truth.” 

Here Mr. McCook shows that he is endeavoring to bring the 
teaching falsely attributed to me into conflict with the truth¬ 
fulness of God, the very contradiction which is stated in the 
rejected Charge IV. and which does not appear in Charge III., 
or in any other of the Charges approved by the Presbytery as 
sufficient. 

On page 28 Mr. McCook says: 

“Here once more we are forced into the apparently illogical position 
of using Scripture as an argument against one who denies the inerrancy 
of Scripture. But as it is the principle of our Church, that the Holy 
Scriptures are infallible, the argument must appeal to all those who 
have not lost their confidence in the Word of God. ” 


XIV 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


But “ once more” has no propriety in this place. There is 
nothing in the previous context to which it can refer. It refers 
back to two statements on page 32, the last of which begins with 
the sentence, “ But of what use is such an argument to those 
who, like Professor Briggs, deny the inerrancy of the Scrip¬ 
ture?” which thus appears to have originally preceded page 
28. This shows that the entire section relating to prediction 
has been transferred from its original position in the argument 
after page 33 to its present position, pp. 27-30. 

Turn again to page 27 and you will see that the argument 
upon inerrancy fortified by the illustrations from the cracked 
mirror and the spot on the Parthenon come to a sudden and 
unexpected close with the sentence: 

“When I say that a document is infallible, I mean that it is without 
error, so that if I claim that I have found an error, unless I can give up 
the error, I must in so far give up the infallibility of the document. 
That is very different from saying that the whole of the document is 
untrue. ” 

The reference to predictive prophecy which follows, pp. 27-30, 
breaks into the argument abruptly. You will find its original 
continuation, if I mistake not, on page 30, where the argument 
on inerrancy is resumed: 

“Well, then, suppose we admit that the inspiration extends to, and the 
inerrancy covers, only that part of the teaching which has to do with 
faith, and practice, ” and so on. 

It is plain that the argument on the fourth Charge has been 
transposed from its original position in the paper and inserted 
in the midst of the argument on the third Charge. 

An argument on the seventh Charge has also been made by 
Mr. McCook. Turn to page 38 and you will see that the argu¬ 
ment from page 38 through the ninth line of page 42 is on the 
seventh Charge, which you required the prosecution to throw 
out of their Charges. The only changes which have been 
made so far as I have observed are that the introductory 
reference to the old eighth Charge has been transposed and 
placed before the argument on the rejected seventh Charge, and 
the connection has been made by the insertion of a sentence 
which by some act of carelessness seems to be in the wrong 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


XV 


place; for it is manifest that no writer with a logical mind 
or a rhetorical experience could ever write: 

“ Professor Briggs affirms that the word ‘redemption’ includes the ‘ whole 
process of grace. ’ It comprehends regeneration, justification, repent¬ 
ance, faith, sanctification and glorification 

and then go on to say: 

“Now, the real meaning of the doctrine of progressive sanctification 
cannot be fully understood without taking into consideration Professor 
Briggs’ doctrine of redemption, of which sanctification is a part. ” 

If these sentences had been written in connection, at the 
same time, by any respectable writer, they would have been 
transposed. The three words, “To do this,” at the beginning 
of the next sentence, put in apparently in order to make a con¬ 
nection with the previous clause, do not conceal the original 
connection of this sentence with the clause before the last. 

If it were necessary I could show you traces of the use of the 
rejected Charges IY. and VII. at several points in the subse¬ 
quent argument. But it is sufficient. Mr. McCook has argued 
elaborately upon the rejected Charges IY. and VII. which you 
directed the prosecution to remove from the Amended Charges. 
He has not introduced these arguments in an ingenious or an 
ingenuous way. It looks like a hasty use of scissors and paste 
and a determination to get in this argument on the Charges 
that were thrown out, in spite of the Presbytery. Your atten¬ 
tion was called to this violation of your ruling during the 
delivery of the argument of Mr. McCook. It was detected by 
the defendant so soon as he began it. But the defendant 
decided to do no more at that time than object to it. Mr. 
McCook has succeeded. His argument on the rejected Charges 
IY. and VII. is all in. It goes up on the records to the 
higher courts, to strengthen his exception against your decision 
to rule them out. The defendant, in his Preliminary Objections, 
called your attention to the errors in law and equity in allowing 
the prosecution to make such Charges and press them for 
probation. You recognized his objection as valid, and you put 
your shield over him to protect him from this unkind and dis¬ 
courteous action of the prosecution. But your shield has 


XVI 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


been pushed aside. Your protection has been scorned. Your 
ruling has been trampled under foot. The defendant has been 
again attacked in your presence with these slanderous accusa¬ 
tions ; and Mr. McCook is triumphant. 

IY. The prosecution seem very zealous for the Standards 
of the Presbyterian Church. We shall show further on that 
their zeal is “without knowledge.” But at the present time 
I desire to call your attention to the fact that their zeal is not 
“the fire of the sanctuary.” There are many references to the 
Standards of our Church under the printed specifications. 
These were, by your order, transferred from the specifications 
to the Charges, and the prosecution were directed to prove by 
them that the doctrines asserted to be essential doctrines of the 
Westminster Standards were indeed and in truth such essential 
doctrines. But every attentive hearer or reader of the argu¬ 
ment of the prosecution must have observed how lightly they 
tripped over the proofs from the Standards. 

Let me call the attention of the court to the fact that the 
prosecution have made no attempt to prove these so-called 
essential doctrines of our Standards. They use the adjective 
“ essential” in the printed Charges, but, judging from the argu¬ 
ment, this adjective is a mere appendage, without meaning 
to them and without use to them. Dr. Birch in his argument 
made no use of any of the passages from the Larger and 
Shorter Catechisms given under the Charges. He made no use 
of Chapter I., sections 5, 6, and 10, under the first Charge, and 
no use whatever of any passages from the Standards under 
Charges IY., Y., and YI. I therefore ask the court to note the 
omissions of proof under Charge I. and to strike out Charges 
IY., Y., and YI., altogether, as entirely destitute of evidence 
that any essential doctrine of our Standards is contravened. 

But some of you may ask, Did not the ingenious Mr. 
McCook notice this serious gap in the argument and fill it up? 
It is possibly surprising to some of you. But in fact he did 
not. No use of passages from the Standards was made in his 
brief argument under Charges IY. and Y., and under the last 
Charge, the only use of the Standards was this assertion 
entirely destitute of proof: “On this point the Standards of 
the Church teach a directly contradictory doctrine, the Shorter 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


XY11 


Catechism being especially strong (Ques. 37), using first the 
expression ‘at ’ their death, and second, the word ‘immedi¬ 
ately ’ ”(p. 42). 

Under such circumstances there is only one thing for this 
court to do. The prosecution have made no case against me 
undercharges IV., V., and VI., and you should rule them out 
of court. In any civil court this would be the procedure. In an 
ecclesiastical court, which should follow law and equity, such a 
course becomes imperative. 

V. In the argument of Mr. McCook the changes were rung 
upon “contradictory statements,” “flatcontradictions,” “retrac¬ 
tion,” and the like. These phrases have become familiar to us 
during the past months, through reading of the New York “ Ob¬ 
server. ” Whether propositions are contradictory or not depends 
somewhat upon the angles of vision. Two parts of a straight 
line may be in opposition to some diseased eyes. If from any 
given point on a straight line slight deviations are made to the 
right and the left, these deviations at once become opposites. 
A logician balancing upon an imaginary line, looking now on 
the right hand and then on the left, will see flat contradictions. 
An author and a teacher has the right to explain himself, and 
he is not to be regarded as contradictory or as inconsistent 
simply because an enemy says so. 

Mr. McCook calls your attention to the fact that I have not 
“ retracted” any statement in the Inaugural Address. But why 
should I do so? No one has yet been able to show that any 
statement made in the Address is erroneous. When it is clear 
that I was wrong, I will confess it and retract—not before. 

I put in evidence extracts from my writings beginning with 
my first Inaugural Address in 1876, and closing with my 
lectures on “The Bible, the Church, and the Reason,” in 1891. 
It is not necessary to read this evidence again. You have 
heard it or you have read it, and you will again have an oppor¬ 
tunity to read it in the printed form. It was presented in order 
to show you what my views have really been during the whole 
period of my teaching in the Union Theological Seminary. In 
the first Inaugural, the platform of my teaching was laid, upon 
which I have stood through all these years. My views of the 
Bible, of Biblical Theology, and of the Higher Criticism have 


Xviii PRELIMINARY REMARKS 

remained unchanged in essence. They have become more 
mature. That is all. The opinions assailed in the Charges III., 
IV., and V. were repeatedly expressed in the “Presbyterian 
Review 99 during the ten years in which I acted as its editor in 
association with Drs. A. A. Hodge and F. L. Patton. The 
views assailed in Charge VI. had been before the public for 
some time as I have shown by extracts from “ Whither?” and the 
article “Redemption after Death.” The only Charges with 
regard to which it can be said with any propriety that they 
charge me with doctrines which I had not taught prior to the 
delivery of the Inaugural, are those respecting the two great 
fountains of divine authority in religion—the Church and the 
Reason; and yet I have shown you by extracts from “ Biblical 
Study” and from “ Whither?” that these were also before the pub¬ 
lic in those earlier publications in a less mature form but no less 
truly in substance. The Inaugural Address was simply a con¬ 
centration of opinions expressed more at length in other places 
and under other circumstances. The defendant is altogether 
unconscious of any substantial change of opinion on the sub¬ 
ject-matters of the Charges for many years. 

There are several statements in the conclusion of Mr. 
McCook’s argument which are some of them gratuitous 
assumptions, others of them almost ludicrous. 

What members of this court can be misled by the statement 
that “you do approve of” the defendant’s teaching “if you vote 
for an acquittal?” That is not the question before you. The 
question is, whether the Charges are true or false, whether 
the defendant has taught the doctrines alleged in the Charges, 
and whether, if he has, these doctrines conflict with the essen¬ 
tial doctrines of the Standards named in the Charges. You 
may disapprove of his teaching altogether, and yet you can do 
no other than pronounce him innocent so far as any case that 
the prosecution has made against him. 

It is intimated that my teaching is beyond the limits of tol¬ 
eration. It will be time enough for the prosecution to talk 
about toleration after they have proved their Charges. The 
defendant has not asked for toleration. He claims his rights 
under the constitution of his Church to teach anything and 
everything that he has ever taught. Mr. McCook uses an 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


XIX 


ambiguous expression when he says “that men should be 
required either to abide by our doctrines or else submit to the 
decisions of our courts.” “Our doctrines” are not the tests of 
orthodoxy if this means what I take it to mean, the doctrines 
of the school of theology to which the prosecution belong. 
The Westminster Standards and Holy Scripture give the doc¬ 
trines by which I am required to abide and by which I shall 
abide so long as I remain a minister of the Presbyterian 
Church. The defendant asks no favors of the court. He asks 
that they try him strictly by the Standards and the Constitu¬ 
tion of the Church. 

What shall we say of these prosecutors who, to say the least, 
are no friends of Union Theological Seminary, taking upon 
their lips the names of my revered teachers and friends, Edward 
Robinson, Henry B. Smith, and William Adams? It is one of 
the mysteries of human life that some minds may come in 
contact with the masters of Christian thought without under¬ 
standing them or learning from them. The best explanation 
of it that I know of is given in the words of an ancient Hindu 
poet: 

“ The mind alike 

Vigorous or weak is capable of culture, 

But still bears fruit according to its nature. 

’Tis not the teacher’s skill that rears the scholar. 

The sparkling gem gives back the glorious radiance 
It drinks from other light, but the dull earth 
Absorbs the blaze and yields no gleam again.” 

(Professor Wilson—Hindu Theatre, Bhavabluti.) 

I have stripped from the argument of the prosecution its 
irrelevant material. And what is left? Nothing substantial! 
If this were a civil court I would now ask you to dismiss the 
case, because it has not been shown that there is a case. But as I 
understand our Book of Discipline, we cannot take this action 
in the present stage of the process. If this were a court of last 
resort and your decision could be final, I would submit the case 
to you without further argument, in the conviction that this 
intelligent court could not vote me guilty on the evidence 
adduced or the arguments made by the prosecution. But it 
must be plain to you all that the prosecution have no such idea. 


XX 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS 


They claim to represent the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America. The whole procedure in this court shows 
that they are making up a case for a higher court. Therefore 
it is necessary for me to make my argument upon the merits 
of the case. 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS BEFORE 
THE PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK. 


i 

THE RULE OF FAITH 

Mr. Moderator, Ministers, and Elders of the Presbytery of 
New York: 

I shall endeavor to make my defence against the Charges 
alleged against me; but it is first necessary to consider several 
preliminary principles which regulate all trials for heresy in 
the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America, 
which have been entirely disregarded by the prosecution in 
their arguments upon the Amended Charges and specifications. 

Presbyterian law requires that the Charges should set forth 
that certain teachings are in irreconcilable conflict with certain 
doctrines which are essential and necessary to the Westminster 
Standards and Holy Scripture. 

It is not sufficient for the prosecution to assert that a doctrine 
is an essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and the Confession of 
Faith. They are required to prove their statement by passages 
from Holy Scripture and the Confession of Faith, interpreted 
by strict historical and grammatical exegesis. They have to 
convince you, and every other court to which the case may be 
appealed, by argument which cannot be gainsayed, that these 
doctrines are essential to the Westminster system. 

I.—Dangerous Errors 

It is not sufficient to maintain and try to prove that Dr. 
Briggs teaches dangerous errors. It is conceivable that a man 



2 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


might hold dangerous errors, and that this could be proven by 
conclusive arguments, and yet such errors might not be an 
offence to be condemned by a Presbytery. 

E.g. (a) One of our ministers might hold that our republican 
form of government is radically inconsistent with the Biblical 
doctrine of the divine right of kings. He might make himself 
very offensive to his people and to us by teaching this Tory 
doctrine of the eighteenth century, and yet we could not prove 
that he was guilty of heresy or immorality under the constitu¬ 
tion of the Presbyterian Church for teaching this doctrine, 
because you could not put in a definite charge any essential 
doctrine of the Westminster Confession with which this opinion 
is in conflict. 

(b) An elder might maintain, as it used to be maintained by 
many in the northern Presbyterian Church and as it is at pres¬ 
ent maintained by some in the southern Presbyterian Church, 
that slavery is a divine institution. Such a doctrine would be 
very offensive in this community. But could you convict an 
elder for holding it and teaching it? Could you frame a defi¬ 
nite charge and assert an essential doctrine of the Confession 
with which this doctrine would be in conflict? 

There are many new questions in religion, doctrine, and 
morals which the Church has not defined and where the guidance 
of Holy Scripture is as yet not altogether clear, about which men 
in our time differ widely, differ seriously, differ in some cases in 
passion and bitterness. But these questions cannot lawfully 
come under the forms of ecclesiastical process in our courts, 
because our constitution has not yet determined them. It may 
be that the Presbyterian Church will have to define some of 
these questions, and it may be necessary to divide the denom¬ 
inations of Christians now existing and to organize new denom¬ 
inations distinguished by their attitudes toward these questions. 
But the Presbyterian Church cannot by a majority vote in 
Presbytery, Synod, or General Assembly determine any such 
questions except in the forms of our constitution, by a revision 
of the Confession after full deliberation, by the vote of two- 
thirds of the Presbyteries. The Inaugural Address may con¬ 
tain ten or twenty dangerous errors in the opinion of some of 
you, but that is not the question which as jurors you have to 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


3 


decide. If such dangerous errors are not in irreconcilable con¬ 
flict with essential and necessary articles of the Westminster 
Confession, you have no constitutional right to deal with them 
in this Presbytery in the forms of ecclesiastical process. The 
only thing you can do lawfully is to overture the General 
Assembly to amend the Confession of Faith so as to exclude 
the dangerous opinions of Dr. Briggs. If you should succeed 
in such revision and bring about such a decision in a legal 
manner, he would use his right of protest and then retire from 
the Presbytery and not wait for a judicial decision of his case. 
This principle is of vast importance. But it has been entirely 
disregarded by the prosecution in the Amended Charges and in 
their argument upon them. Even if it be true that my teach¬ 
ings contravene the seven doctrines of the Confession specified 
in the Amended Charges, of not more than one of them could 
it be said that they are dangerous errors in the sense that they 
contravene essential doctrines of our Standards. 

II.—Double Rule of Faith 

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
has a double standard, a double rule of faith. It affirms that 
Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 
But it also declares that the Westminster Confession and Cate¬ 
chisms constitute the official rule of faith in the Presbyterian 
Church. At our ordination we say yes, to the question “Do 
you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this 
Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the 
Holy Scriptures? ” From this double rule of faith these conse¬ 
quences necessarily spring. 

(1) The ecclesiastical rule of faith, the Confession, and the 
Catechisms must yield to the divine rule of faith, Holy Scrip¬ 
ture. (a) If, therefore, the ecclesiastical rule make any state¬ 
ment that is not in harmony with the Holy Scripture, such 
statement cannot be binding; e.g., “ Tolerating a false religion ” 
is represented to be a sin forbidden in the second command¬ 
ment, according to the original edition of the Larger Cate¬ 
chism. This statement was stricken out by the men of the 
American revolution as unscriptural. But before it was stricken 


4 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


out it was not regarded as binding because it was always recog¬ 
nized by the American fathers of the eighteenth century as not 
in harmony with Holy Scripture. There are other clauses re¬ 
maining in the Confession and Catechisms of a similar charac¬ 
ter, some of which the revision movement now in progress is 
aiming to remove, (b) If the ecclesiastical rule make any 
statement which cannot be sustained by evidence from Holy 
Scripture, it is not valid in law, because the Westminster 
standards profess to set forth doctrines which are given in 
Holy Scripture and those doctrines alone. Ifc is not sufficient, 
therefore, to show that a doctrine is in opposition to a statement 
of the Confession and Catechisms. It is also necessary to show 
that it is against Holy Scripture; e.g ., the statement in the 
Confession XXV., 6: 

“ Nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that 
antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself 
in the church against Christ and all that is called God.” 

This cannot be regarded as a binding statement because it is 
evident from the consensus of exegetical scholars that it rests 
upon a misinterpretation of Holy Scripture; and therefore 
every true Presbyterian is bound by his vows of subscription to 
eliminate this statement from his creed, and to follow Holy 
Scripture rather than the Confession. There arise many cases 
of difficulty under this head, but these may all be solved in a 
constitutional manner by the forms of law in the Presbyterian 
Church. It is undoubtedly true that in most instances of 
heresy the heretics will claim that they have the Scriptures as 
their authority over against the Confession of Faith. But 
every case will have to be decided on its merits, and the prin¬ 
ciple is a plain one. If a man differ from the Confession in an 
unessential matter, and claim that the Scripture sustains him 
against the Confession, he is within his rights if he maintain 
his position in the Church without making an issue. If, how¬ 
ever, he differ from the Confession in an essential and necessary 
article and claim that the Scripture sustains him, he is bound 
to call the attention of the Presbytery to this difference and ask 
their decision. The Presbytery in every case, when its atten¬ 
tion is called to the difference, has the right of decision subject 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


5 


to appeal. But the decision by the Presbytery must rest upon 
this principle, that nothing shall be demanded of any one as an 
article of faith which cannot be proven in the express language 
of Holy Scripture. This is the law of an offence on the positive 
and negative sides. 

“An offence is anything, in the doctrine, principles, or practice of a 
church member, officer, or judicatory, which is contrary to the Word of 
God ; or which, if it be not in its own nature sinful, may tempt others to 
sin, or mar their spiritual edification (3). 

“Nothing shall, therefore, be the object of judicial process, which can¬ 
not be proven to be contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or to the regula¬ 
tions and practice of the Church founded thereon; nor anything which 
does not involve those evils which Discipline is intended to prevent” (4). 

Holy Scripture is the infallible test of every statement in the 
Westminster standards, and no man can be proved guilty of 
heresy or sin who is not in conflict with Holy Scripture. 

It must be shown that the doctrine against which the charge 
is made is “ contrary to the Holy Scripture or to the regula¬ 
tions and practice of the Church founded thereon .” There 
are many regulations and practices of the Presbyterian Church 
which are founded neither on Confession or Holy Scripture, 
but which are mere traditions of doctrine and practice. I shall 
show you at the proper time that the contradiction charged 
against my doctrines is chiefly of this character of contradiction 
—not with Bible or Confession, but with traditional dogma. 
The prosecutors have not been able to show that there is con¬ 
tradiction of “ regulations and practice founded on the Confes¬ 
sion ,” still less that there is contradiction of “regulations and 
practice founded on Holy Scripture ” 

(2) The Westminster Confession, the ecclesiastical rule of 
faith, gives an official statement of the doctrines which the 
Presbyterian Church finds in Holy Scripture. There are many 
statements of Holy Scripture which are not comprehended in 
the statements of the Westminster standards. Such statements 
of Holy Scripture have not yet been taken up by the Church 
into its system of doctrine and are not therefore to be regarded 
as a part of the rule of faith of the denomination. 

E.g. There is a doctrine of the millennium given in Rev. xx., 
but there is no doctrine of the millennium given in the West- 


G 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


minster standards. There are differences of opinion in the 
Church on this doctrine of the millennium. There are some who 
think that it is an exact period of a thousand years to he ex¬ 
pected in the future. Others think that the millennium has 
already passed. Still others think that the millennium is only a 
great symbol; again others think that it is the complete period 
of the kingdom of Christ on earth. If now the great majority 
of this Presbytery were convinced that the scriptural doctrine 
of the millennium made it a period of a thousand years of bless¬ 
edness in the future, and one member of the Presbytery held 
the older view that the millennium is long past, could you try 
him for heresy because he interpreted Holy Scripture differently 
from his Presbytery in this regard? The Church has not yet 
officially determined its interpretation of the scriptural doctrine 
of the millennium, and no Presbytery has the right by a majority 
vote to determine any doctrine of the millennium whatever. If 
any Presbytery should attempt to use such passages of Holy 
Scripture to define dogma not already defined in the West¬ 
minster Confession and Catechisms, it would add new dogma 
to the official doctrine of the Church. The only way in which 
new dogmatic statements may be added to the rule of faith of 
the Church, is by overtures in the form of revision of the Con¬ 
fession of Faith, adopted by two-thirds of the Presbyteries, in 
the method provided by the form of government. 

A court cannot consider any passages of Holy Scripture in 
proof of any doctrines not defined in the Westminster Confes¬ 
sion and Catechisms, nor any passages of Holy Scripture which 
are not essential to the rule of faith and life. This principle 
rules out of court all the proof texts under Charges IV. and Y. 
and a great majority of all those under the other specifications. 
It also rules from Charges IY. and Y. the statement “ which 
is contrary to direct statements of Holy Scripture.” 

It is the law of the Presbyterian Church, therefore, that this 
double rule of faith, the divine rule, Holy Scripture, and the 
ecclesiastical rule, the Westminster Confession, should coincide 
in statement before that statement can be regarded as authori¬ 
tative and binding. 

This double standard has its disadvantages as the double 
monetary standard in gold and silver has its disadvantages. 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


7 


As silver must always yield to gold, so the Confession must 
always yield to Holy Scripture. It would be an ideal way to 
have one gold standard in commerce and one Biblical standard 
in theology. But there are theologians as well as merchants 
who prefer the lower standard. So long as the double standard 
exists in the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, we must 
submit to it with all its inconveniences. It was necessary for 
the prosecution to show (1) that the doctrines with which, as 
they allege, my declarations are in irreconcilable conflict, are 
really essential doctrinal statements of the Westminster sym¬ 
bols, and then, (2) that they are also doctrinal statements of 
Holy Scripture. This they have not done. This they can¬ 
not do. 


III.—The System of Doctrine 

The Presbyterian Church has a formula of subscription which 
defines the sense in which office bearers in the Presbyterian 
Church are bound to the ecclesiastical rule of faith: 

“Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this 
Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures? ” 

This subscription does not bind us to every statement of the 
Confession of Faith; but only to the system of doctrine con¬ 
tained therein. This system of doctrine in the formula of sub¬ 
scription is based upon the terms of the Adopting Act of 1729, 
the Plan of Union of 1758, and the decision of the supreme court 
in the Harker case in 1765. The Adopting Act of 1729 adopted 
the Confession of Faith and the two Catechisms “ as being in 
all the essential and necessary articles good forms of sound 
words and systems of Christian doctrine.” The Scotch 
Adopting Act of 1690 uses the phrase “as containing the 
sum and substance of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. ” 
The Irish Pacific Act contains the clause “ as being a good 
abridgment of the Christian doctrines contained in the 
Holy Scriptures.” The American Adopting Act, based on all 
these earlier Presbyterian documents, gives the phrase, “as 
being in all the essential and necessary articles , good forms 


8 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine .” The 
American expression has two sides. The latter, “ good forms 
of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine ” is of the 
same essential character as the Irish and Scotch Acts. There 
is an important difference, however. The Scotch Act refers to 
the doctrine of the Reformed Churches , the Irish Act to 
Christian doctrine , and our American Act agrees with the 
latter and not the former. The American Act, however, gives 
a still further qualification in the direction of breadth and lib¬ 
erty. The Confession does not say “ good forms of sound words 
and systems of Christian doctrine ” in all its articles, but only 
in “ all the essential and necessary articles” The subscrip¬ 
tion is limited to essential and necessary articles. 

Different theories of discipline and subscription prevailed in 
the contests between the old side and the new side in the eigh¬ 
teenth century, but the Plan of Union of 1758 reaffirmed the 
principles of the Adopting Act as follows: 

“ That when any matter is determined by a major vote, every member 
shall either actively concur with, or passively submit to, such determi¬ 
nation ; or if his conscience permit him to do neither, he shall, after suffi¬ 
cient liberty modestly to reason and remonstrate, peaceably withdraw 
from our communion without attempting to make any schism. Provided 
always, that this shall be understood to extend only to such determina¬ 
tions as the body shall judge indispensable in doctrine and Presbyterian 
government. ” 

We see in the phrase “ indispensable in doctrine and Pres¬ 
byterian government ” only a synonym of the “ essential and 
necessary articles” and “agreeable in substance to the Word 
of God” of the Adopting Act of 1729. 

The difference as to subscription was harmonized in the 
declaration of this same Plan of Union: 

“Both Synods having always approved and received the Westminster 
Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms as an orthodox 
and excellent system of Christian doctrine, founded on the Word of God, 
we do still receive the same as the confession of our faith, and also 
adhere to the plan of worship, government, and discipline contained in 
the Westminster Directory, strictly enjoining it on all our members and 
probationers for the ministry, that they preach and teach according to 
the form of sound words in said Confession and Catechisms, and avoid 
and oppose all errors contrary thereto. ” 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


9 


The phrase “orthodox and excellent system of Christian 
doctrine ” is substantially the same as the phrase of the Adopt¬ 
ing Act of 1729, “ as being in all the essential and necessary 
articles good forms of sound words and systems of Chris¬ 
tian doctrine ” in slightly different language. The system of 
Christian doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards was 
what was adopted by the Reunited Church in 1729, and this 
embraced only that which was “ indispensable in doctrine or 
Presbyterian government,” that which was “essential and 
necessary ” to the Westminster system. 

The Synod of New York and Philadelphia fell back upon the 
Adopting Act of 1729, and declined to follow the strict views 
of subscription of the Synod of Philadelphia as expressed in the 
Declaratory Act of 1736, 

The position of the Synod of New York was well expressed 
in their ultimatum in 1753: 

“That difference in judgment should not oblige a dissenting member 
to withdraw from our communion, unless the matter were judged by the 
body to be essential in doctrine and discipline. And this, we must own, 
is an important article with us, which we cannot any way dispense with, 
and it appears to us to be strictly Christian and Scriptural, as well as 
Presbyterian ; otherwise we must make everything that appears plain duty 
to us a term of communion, which we apprehend the Scripture prohibits. 
And it appears plain to us that there may be many opinions relating to 
the great truths of religion that are not great themselves, nor of sufficient 
importance to be made terms of communion. Nor can these sentiments 
‘ open a door to an unjustifiable latitude in principles and practices, ’ any 
more than the apostolic prohibition of receiving those that are weak to 
doubtful disputations. What is plain sin and plain duty in one’s account 
is not so in another’s; and the Synod has still in their power to judge 
what is essential and what is not. In order to prevent an unjustifiable 
latitude, we must not make terms of communion which Christ has not 
made, and we are convinced that He hath not made every truth and 
every duty a term ” (Records, p. 254). 

The Synod of New York insisted upon these judicious views, 
until at last they were incorporated in the Declaration of Re¬ 
union, in the terms, “ orthodox and excellent systems of Chris¬ 
tian doctrine,” and “ only such determinations as the body 
shall judge indispensable in doctrine or Presbyterian govern¬ 
ment” 

There was a heresy trial in the Synod of New York which 


10 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


was not completed until after the reunion. Samuel Harker was 
finally in 1763 declared disqualified to exercise the ministerial 
office: 

“As he has departed from the truth and opposed this Church in some 
important articles, and misrepresented the Church of Scotland, his doc¬ 
trine and practice have a schismatical tendency ” (Records, p. 330). 

Mr. Harker made a written “Appeal to the Christian World” 
against the Synod. John Blair, who had been familiar with 
the case from the beginning in the Hew Side Presbytery of 
Hew Brunswick, published a reply, giving a “Hew Side” view 
of the Adopting Act of 1729, which was regarded as still in 
force: 

“ He [Mr. Harker] would have it believed to be a violation of an Act 
of Synod, a.d. 1729, which he calls one of the great Articles of their 
Union, and which he thought sufficiently secured the right of private 
judgment, wherein it is provided that a minister or candidate shall be 
admitted notwithstanding scruples respecting article or articles the Synod 
or Presbytery shall judge not essential or necessary in Doctrine, Worship, 
and Government. But in order to improve this to his purpose, he takes 
the words essential or necessary in a sense in which it is plain from the 
Act itself the Synod never intended they should be taken. He would have 
them to signify what is essential to ‘ Communion with Jesus Christ, ’ or the 
Being of Grace in the heart, and accordingly supposes that no error can 
be essential which is not of such malignity as to exclude the advocate or 
maintainer of it from communion with Christ. But the Synod say essen¬ 
tial in Doctrine, Worship, and Government— i. e ., essential to the system 
of doctrine contained in our Westminster Confession of Faith considered 
as a system, and to the mode of worship and plan of government con¬ 
tained in our Directory ” (“ The Synod of New York and Philadelphia 
Vindicated,” Philadelphia, 1765, pp. 10, 11), 

There can be no doubt that John Blair correctly interprets 
the Adopting Act of 1729, and also the views of the Reunion 
Synod of 1763: 

“That, therefore, is an essential error in the Synod’s sense, which is of 
such malignity as to subvert or greatly injure the system of doctrine and 
mode of worship and government contained in the Westminster Confes¬ 
sion of Faith and Directory.” 

The terms of subscription of 1788 adopted in connection with 
the whole constitution of our Church were based upon the 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


11 


Adopting Act, the Plan of Union, and the decision in the 
Harker case. 

In these ordination vows are wrapped up all the principles for 
which American Presbyterians had been contending from the 
beginning—liberal subscription to the system of doctrine , a 
general approval of the Presbyterian mode of government and 
discipline, and the necessity of piety and religious experience in 
the ministry. 

That the Synod was a broad and tolerant body is clear from 
this fact. The Presbytery of Suffolk was offended at some 
proposed modifications in the Form of Government, in the 
direction of strictness. The Synod replied to their overture in 
1787 requesting a separation, with the desire that their request 
should be reconsidered, representing: 

“We have always supposed that you, as brethren with us, believed in 
the same general system of doctrine, discipline, worship, and Church 
government, as the same is contained in the Westminster Confession of 
Faith, Catechisms and Directory. ... We are Presbyterians, and we 
firmly believe the Presbyterian system of doctrine, discipline, and Church 
government to be nearer to the Word of God than that of any other sect 
or denomination of Christians. Shall all other sects and parties be united 
among themselves for their support and increase, and Presbyterians 
divided and subdivided, so as to be the scorn of some and the prey of 
others? ” (Records, p. 532). 

This letter, and the able committee appointed by Synod to 
“remove difficulties,” gave satisfaction to the Presbytery of 
Suffolk, and it continued cordially with the Synod, and united 
in the adoption of the Constitution. It was the “ general sys¬ 
tem of doctrine, discipline, worship, and Church government,” 
which was adopted in the Constitution, and matters not essen¬ 
tial and necessary to this “general system” were in 1789, as in 
1729 and 1758, not binding.* 

The Presbyterian Church during the past one hundred years 
has adhered to this position. There have been great ecclesias¬ 
tical and doctrinal controversies. The separation of old side 
and new side in 1741 was repeated in the separation of old 
school and new school in 1837. The Reunion of 1758 was re¬ 
peated in the Reunion of 1870. There has ever been contention 

*See Briggs’ “American Presbyterianism,” pp. 371, 372. 



12 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


between stricter views of discipline and subscription and milder 
views; but the Church through all its history has adhered to 
its historic position and has never repealed its official declara¬ 
tions in the colonial period, and has never changed its fbrmula. 

It is plain, therefore, that system of doctrine in our terms of 
subscription means the system of doctrine contained in the 
Westminster Confession, and that system is composed of the 
essential and necessary articles —that is, those articles which 
are essential and necessary to the system. The Church re¬ 
serves the right to define what these essential and necessary 
articles are; but it must, when it makes such a decision, defi¬ 
nitely and distinctly determine that they are necessary and 
essential articles of the Westminster Confession. 

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
has never attempted to set forth what are the essential and 
necessary articles of the Westminster Confession, and therefore 
there is room for considerable difference of opinion with refer¬ 
ence to any doctrine which may be in debate. But there are 
certain historical and exegetical principles which guide to a 
right decision in most cases. 

(a) The Presbyterian Church has three ecclesiastical rules of 
faith, three doctrinal standards, the Confession, the Larger 
Catechism., and the Shorter Catechism. The Adopting Act 
adopts them as three distinct systems. The term of subscrip¬ 
tion now in use refers to the system contained in the Confession 
alone, but there can be no doubt that the two Catechisms were 
adopted in 1788 and are constituent parts of the Constitution. 
Here then we have three parallel systems of doctrine. The 
Shorter Catechism is a compendium of the Larger Catechism. 
The Larger Catechism was made subsequently to the Confes¬ 
sion by the same Westminster Assembly, and simply put in a 
catechetical form the doctrinal statements of the Confession of 
Faith. The only difference 4 is that several of the chapters of 
the Confession cover ground that was not deemed appropriate 
to Catechisms, and therefore have their parallels in the Form of 
Government, Directory of Worship, and Book of Discipline. 

But with regard to the strictly doctrinal chapters, those which 
alone are in dispute in this case, there can be no doubt that the 
three systems cover the same ground. From this it appears 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


13 


that nothing should be regarded as essential and necessary to 
the system which is not contained in the three systems. The 
Westminster divines could not, and they did not, omit from 
their Catechisms anything that was essential and necessary to 
their Confession. No statement of the Confession should be 
regarded as an essential and necessary statement which has not 
in the doctrinal parts its parallel statement in the Larger and 
Shorter Catechisms; or in the ecclesiastical parts in the Form 
of Government and Directory for Worship. 

This principle rules out of the Amended Charges all but two 
of the seven doctrines stated as essential doctrines. 

The reverse of this proposition is equally true. No statement 
of Larger or Shorter Catechism can be regarded as binding 
which cannot be found in the Confession of Faith likewise. 
And where the same doctrine is found in the three systems in 
different terms, the terms of the one system are not to be pre¬ 
ferred to the terms of the other systems. That only is the doc¬ 
trine which may be expressed equally well in the terms of the 
three systems. Nothing is essential to the doctrine which is 
not common to the terminology of the Confession and of the 
Larger and the Shorter Catechisms. It is sufficient here to call 
your attention to one example. In the statement of the original 
condition of our race prior to the Fall, the Confession of Faith 
uses the term “original righteousness” (VI. 2), the Larger 
Catechism uses the term “estate of innocency ” (21). No such 
stress can be lawfully laid upon the term “ righteousness ” as to 
exclude “innocency.” It is as lawful to use the one phrase as 
the other. The doctrine of our standards must be consistent 
with the use of both of these terms. 

(b) Inasmuch as the formula of subscription binds us to the 
essential and necessary articles and to those alone, no word or 
sentence or section of a chapter can be regarded as essential 
which may be removed without impairing the Westminster 
system. The distinction between essential and necessary on 
the one hand, and unessential and unnecessary on the other, 
must be made in a consistent manner. The question to be de¬ 
termined is not what a majority of a Presbytery may regard as 
an essential and necessary article of faith at the present time. 
You have to determine what is an essential and necessary arti- 


14 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


cle in the Westminster Confession, what the Westminster di¬ 
vines regarded as an essential and necessary article of faith, and 
which they made an essential and necessary article when they 
constructed the Westminster system. An article might be re¬ 
garded as essential and necessary to the system of theology of 
certain honored teachers now in use, and so to the systems in 
the minds of their pupils, which was yet unessential and unneces¬ 
sary in the minds of the Westminster divines. Many such in¬ 
stances might be cited. There are many things essential to the 
scholastic Calvinism of some of our schools of theology which 
are unimportant in the Confession or omitted altogether from 
the Westminster system. E.g., the doctrine of Repentance 
unto Life is an essential and necessary doctrine of the West¬ 
minster Confession. It is strongly and fully stated in the Con¬ 
fession and in both Catechisms, and yet it is omitted from that 
system of theology which is in greatest use in the Presbyterian 
theological schools in this country at the present time. The 
doctrine of Forgiveness of Sin is an essential and necessary 
article of the Westminster system, and yet one looks for it in 
vain in two of the systems of theology which are claimed to be 
standards of orthodoxy. On the other hand, the doctrine of 
Regeneration is regarded as an essential and necessary article 
in modern Presbyterian theology since the rise of Methodism, 
and yet the term Regeneration is only used incidentally in the 
Confession of Faith. The broader and deeper doctrine of 
Effectual Calling occupies the place of regeneration in the Con¬ 
fession of Faith and in the older theologians. Baptismal Re¬ 
generation is regarded by most modern Presbyterians as a dan¬ 
gerous error, and yet Cornelius Burgess wrote a book entitled 
“Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants ,” and he was sub¬ 
sequently made assessor of the Westminster Assembly, and was 
one of the most honored and influential members of that As¬ 
sembly during its long sessions. Through the influence of 
Bishop Butler the doctrine of Probation entered into and 
warped the theology of the Presbyterian churches, and this 
doctrine is regarded by many as essential and necessary to a 
true moral system. But the doctrine of probation is unknown 
to the Westminster divines. It had indeed an Arminian origin 
through Daniel Whitby and is essentially contrary to the Cal- 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


15 


vinistic scheme of grace. Great changes take place in the his¬ 
tory of theology. Doctrines arise and decline in importance. 
Old doctrines go into the background, new doctrines emerge. 
The Westminster standards stereotyped the doctrines of the 
Westminster divines of the seventeenth century. We have 
subscribed to their system and to the essential and necessary 
articles of their Confession. But we have not subscribed to 
any other dogmatic systems or to the essential and necessary 
articles in any other systems, whether these are stated in 
printed books or are bubbling up 'in speculative minds. It is 
necessary for the Presbytery to ’consider that they have no 
authority to determine what is essential and necessary accord¬ 
ing to their views of what is essential and necessary in the pres¬ 
ent state of theology; hut they must determine what is essen¬ 
tial and necessary according to the Westminster Confession of 
Faith. The Westminster system is the rule of judgment, not 
any other system of theology which may possibly rule your 
faith and life. 

IV.—The Constitution a Compact 

The Presbyterian Church is a church with a Constitution. 
This Constitution is a compact between the ministers who 
constitute the Church. It restricts the minister who subscribes 
to it. He must hold to the essential and necessary articles of 
that Constitution, or he has no lawful place in the Church. But 
the Constitution also restricts the Church and protects the min¬ 
ister. The Church cannot change its Constitution except in a 
constitutional way, giving an opportunity to all who dissent 
from the change to withdraw. The Church cannot impose upon 
its ministry anything that is unconstitutional, or anything to 
which he did not agree on his entrance upon the ministry, or in 
a subsequent revision of the Constitution. The ordination of a 
Presbyterian minister is of the nature of a compact which binds 
both parties. Neither party can violate that compact without 
wrong-doing. If the minister violate the compact he can be 
tried and, if found guilty, expelled from the Church. But what 
if the Church should violate the compact and thereby damage 
the reputation and usefulness of the minister? In such a case 


16 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


the minister can seek redress in the higher ecclesiastical courts, 
and if these fail him and persist in their violation of compact 
and do him any wrong which the civil courts can recognize, he 
may resort to the civil court, and the civil court may compel the 
Presbyterian Church to adhere to its part of the compact and 
stay it from damaging the reputation and standing of its min¬ 
isters by unconstitutional action. 

The history of subscription is instructive here. The West¬ 
minster divines were opposed to subscription. They would 
never have composed such elaborate systems if they had sup¬ 
posed they would ever be imposed upon the ministry of the 
Church of God. Anthony Tufckney, the chairman of the com¬ 
mittee which framed the Shorter Catechism, tells us: 

“In the Assemblie, I gave my vote with others that the Confession of 
Faith, put outt by Authoritie should not bee eyther required to bee sworn 
or subscribed too; wee having bin burnt in the hand in that kind before, 
but so as not to be publickly preached or written against ” (Eight Letters 
of Anthony Tuckney and Benjamin Whichcote, London, 1753, p. 76). 

Internal evidence makes it plain that the Westminster divines 
had no intention of making the Confession of Faith a rule of 
faith. The Larger Catechism says: 

“The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of 
God, the only rule of faith and obedience ” (3). 

The Shorter Catechism says: 

“ The word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and 
enjoy him ” (2). 

Furthermore, the Confession represents that we must distin¬ 
guish in Scripture itself between the essential and non-essential, 
between those things which constitute the rule of faith and life; 
and those things which are not constituent parts of the rule of 
faith and life. 

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike 
clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, be¬ 
lieved, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened 
in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the 
unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a suffi¬ 
cient understanding of them ” (I. 7). 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


17 


This statement of our Confession is of vast importance. The 
prosecution have overlooked it in their use of citations from the 
Confession. They disregard it throughout their charges. This 
section teaches that Holy Scripture is for all alike, rich and 
poor, wise and ignorant, and that all may attain such sufficient 
understanding of it as is necessary unto salvation. There¬ 
fore a dogmatic faith is unnecessary unto salvation. It is not 
necessary that any one should accept or hold any confession of 
faith, or any catechism, or any creed, or any of the dogmatic 
utterances of the Church in order to salvation. They may one 
and all be unknown to the reader of the Scriptures, and yet he 
may gain from Scripture itself “ sufficient understanding of those 
things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed 
for salvation.” Scripture needs no fences to inclose it, no 
breastworks to defend it, no champion to espouse its cause, no 
dogma to bar it in. It is entirely sufficient of itself alone to 
convince, persuade, enlighten, and save mankind. 

The Westminster divines had suffered from the imposition 
of dogma and ritual, ceremonies and ecclesiastical regulations 
which pinched their consciences and forced them into non¬ 
conformity. They saw and they stated the true Biblical prin¬ 
ciple. They were not altogether faultless in their own practice. 
They constructed an elaborate system of doctrine, many state¬ 
ments of which cannot be said to be “ clearly propounded and 
opened in some place of Scripture or other.” But we are to 
follow their teaching rather than their practice. In this teach¬ 
ing they rebuke themselves in a measure. But later divines in 
still greater measure are rebuked for the elaborate systems of 
dogma which they have imposed upon the ministry in our 
schools of theology as tests of orthodoxy. Ministers are con¬ 
tending hotly for dogma which not only is not “ clearly pro¬ 
pounded and opened in Holy Scripture,” but which is not to 
be found in Holy Scripture at all, and which is not even stated 
in the Westminster standards. It is the achievement in part 
of the modern discipline of Biblical theology that it presents 
the teachings of Holy Scripture in their Biblical proportions, 
thus showing the exaggerations of the traditional dogma, its 
insertions of unscriptural dogma in its systems, its neglect of 
important scriptural doctrine, and its depression of essential 
2 


18 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


doctrine of Holy Scripture. There is thus a conflict of Bible 
with tradition which must go on in a life-and-death struggle 
until tradition is once more defeated and destroyed. The mod¬ 
ern Discipline of Symbolics shows the origin of the Westminste' 
symbols, traces the historic formation of its doctrine and their 
expression in the three standards, interprets them by the writ¬ 
ings of their authors and the history of opinion in their time, 
and thus exposes the counterfeit theology which has been palmed 
off upon modern Presbyterians by those who claim to be Puri¬ 
tans but are none; who claim to be sound in the faith, when 
they have abandoned the Westminster faith for another faith; 
and who are simply and alone scholastic Calvinists of the 
school of Francis Turretine of Geneva, with a streak of modern 
evangelicalism. It is clear that the Westminster Confession 
binds us only to the Bible as a rule of faith and practice, and 
only to those things in the Bible which are essential parts of 
that rule of faith and practice. 

The Confession says: 

“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the 
doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to 
his word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship ” (XX. 2). 

And again: 

“ All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and 
life” (I. 2). 

It is evident, therefore, that the Westminster Confession 
makes Holy Scripture the only rule of faith, obedience, and wor¬ 
ship, and that anything besides it as well as anything contrary 
to it is a violation of liberty of conscience which should not be 
tolerated. It is doubtful, therefore, whether subscription to the 
Westminster Confession in any form is allowed by the Confes¬ 
sion itself; and it may be argued with plausibility that sub¬ 
scription is against the doctrine of the three standards. So 
thought the English Presbyterians in the seventeenth and eigh¬ 
teenth centuries, and subscription was never imposed upon the 
ministry by the old English Presbyterians. Subscription did 
not originate in the Church of Scotland. It was imposed upon 
the Church of Scotland by the Parliament of Scotland, not so 
much to bind the ministry as to bind the Church. Its histori- 


THE RULE OF FAITH 


19 


cal design was to protect all ministers of the Episcopal Church 
of Scotland, who after the Revolution were willing to conform 
to the Presbyterian Church of Scotland and prevent those retal¬ 
iatory measures which the more rigid Presbyterians were de¬ 
sirous of carrying out against their former persecutors. Sub¬ 
scription bound the Presbyteries and stayed them from casting 
out of their parishes any Episcopal ministers who were willing 
to subscribe. 

The historic origin of subscription in the Presbyterian Church 
illustrates what has ever been the legal obligations of terms of 
subscription. They bind the minister and they protect him 
from further impositions by unreasonable majorities. They 
protect the Presbytery from heretics within the limits assigned 
—but they stay the Presbytery from pronouncing any minister 
a heretic who is faithful to his subscription vow. 

Considerable time has been taken to set clearly before you the 
ecclesiastical and civil issues which may be wrapped up in this 
case, because it is important that you should confront all the 
consequences that may be involved in a trial upon unlawful 
charges. It will be necessary for the prosecution to show that 
my teachings are in conflict with essential and necessary arti¬ 
cles of the Westminster Confession and Holy Scripture, or you 
cannot condemn me without a violation of the Constitution of 
the Church. If you should violate the Constitution of the 
Church and break the compact made with me and others at 
our ordination, we would seek relief in the Synod and General 
Assembly, and if the General Assembly sustain the violation 
of that compact with me and those who agree with me, and do 
any wrong which the civil courts can lawfully recognize, we 
might be compelled to seek relief in the civil courts of our 
country. 

Explanations 

It is a remarkable feature of this trial, that from the first 
initiation of the process until the present time, attention has 
been directed to the Inaugural Address on the Authority of 
Holy Scripture. If the Inaugural Address contain heresy, 
exactly the same heresies were before the public in my printed 
books for months previous to the delivery of the Address, e.g.: 


20 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


The question of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture was discussed in 
my “ Biblical Study,” published in 1883, and in my “ Whither?” 
published in 1889. The question of the authorship of the Pen¬ 
tateuch was discussed in the “Presbyterian Review,” January, 
1883. The question of Sanctification after Death is set forth in 
“ Whither?” 1889, and in an article entitled “ Redemption after 
Death” in the “Magazine of Christian Literature,” December, 
1890. What was stated more fully in these writings was given 
in a condensed and rhetorical form in the Inaugural Address. I 
know of no precedent in the history of ecclesiastical process, 
where prosecutors subjected themselves to such limitations as 
these prosecutors when they confine themselves to the Inaugural, 
and shut their eyes against all the previous writings of the de¬ 
fendant. If my Inaugural be heretical, all those other writings 
are still more heretical. 

Another remarkable feature of this case is that the prosecu¬ 
tion have objected to any statements of explanations that I have 
made since the publication of the Inaugural. They seem desir¬ 
ous to convict the Inaugural of heresy rather than to convict 
its author of heresy. But it is my right to set the Inaugural 
Address in the light of its history, to point you to the previous 
writings of the author in which his doctrines are more fully 
set forth, to ask you to consider that he was speaking to his 
own students and friends who knew of his writings and his 
teachings; that the Address was academic in character, deliv¬ 
ered in the chapel of Union Theological Seminary, and neces¬ 
sarily terse and compact in utterance; that it is in the nature 
of an outline of a great subject, and that the author is entitled 
to fill up that outline and to explain anything in it in his own 
way. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the 
Address is heretical as they interpret it. It is necessary that 
they should convince you that the author of the Address holds 
and teaches heretical opinions, or else you cannot convict him. 

It is the law and usage of the Presbyterian Church that the 
accused should be entitled to explain his own words. You can¬ 
not convict me on the interpretation of the prosecution; you are 
obliged in law to accept my explanations. 

Once more let me call your attention to the decision of the 
supreme court in the Craighead case, 1824: 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 21 


“ That a man cannot fairly be convicted of heresy, for using expressions 
that may be so interpreted as to involve heretical doctrines, if they may 
also admit of a more favorable construction: because, no one can tell in 
what sense an ambiguous expression is used, but the speaker or writer, 
and he has a right to explain himself; and in such cases, candor requires 
that a court should favor the accused, by putting on his words the more 
favorable, rather than the less favorable construction. Another principle 
is, that no man can rightly be convicted of heresy by inference or impli¬ 
cation ; that is, we must not charge an accused person with holding those 
consequences which may legitimately flow from his assertions. Many 
men are grossly inconsistent with themselves; and while it is right, in 
argument, to overthrow false opinions, by tracing them in their connec¬ 
tions and consequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opinion 
which he disavows ” (Craighead Case: “ Minutes of the General Assem¬ 
bly,” 1824, p. 122). 

It is necessary for me to say again what I have said before 
the Presbytery and also before the General Assembly, that the 
process against me was instituted without giving me any op¬ 
portunity to make such explanations as might have rendered 
a process unnecessary. The process began with a violation of 
law. I was entitled to make those explanations before pro¬ 
cess was begun. You ought to have given me the privilege. 
It was my right under Presbyterian law and ecclesiastical 
practice. You did me a great wrong then; you cannot deprive 
me of my legal right to make these explanations now. You 
are jurors, under your solemn obligation in a court of Jesus 
Christ, and in the Divine Presence you must give heed to my ex¬ 
planations and judge according to them. You cannot find me 
guilty unless you find that the explanations I shall give of my 
statements are contrary to essential and necessary articles of 
the Westminster Confession and of Holy Scripture. 


II 

THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 

In order to save valuable time, I shall venture to consider 
Charges I. and II. together. This may be done with propriety 
for several reasons: (1) They both relate to the same general 
subject, namel yfountains of divine authority ” (2) They 



22 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


both assert the same essential doctrines of Holy Scripture and 
the Standards to which my teachings are alleged to be contrary. 
(3) They both cite the same passages from Holy Scripture and 
from the Standards of the Church in evidence. 

The charges differ in two respects: (1) in several citations 
from the Inaugural Address; (2) in the statements of doctrines 
taught by me. I shall therefore consider first of all that which 
is common to the two charges, and afterward what is special 
under each of them. 

The charges have three parts*: (1) the doctrines stated as the 
essential doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and the Standards of 
the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; (2) 
the doctrines attributed to me; and (3) the charge that the 
doctrines attributed fco me “are contrary to the said essen¬ 
tial doctrines.” 

Let us test these three parts in their order. 

(1) The essential doctrine of our standards is said to be 
“that the Holy Scripture is most necessary, and the rule of 
faith and practice.” 

It is plain that two doctrines are here stated. The two doc¬ 
trines are (1) “that the Holy Scripture is most necessary,” and 
(2) “the rule of faith and practice.” These two doctrines might 
have been embraced under a more general statement of doc¬ 
trine if the prosecution had chosen to do so. But in fact they 
state them as two different doctrines. You have decided to 
try them together, but to vote on each charge separately. 

I admit that the doctrine, “ that Holy Scripture is the rule of 
faith and practice,” is an essential doctrine of our Standards 
and of Holy Scripture. There is no evidence required to prove 
that proposition in the Charge. I admit that the doctrine that 
“Holy Scripture is most necessary” is a doctrine of the West¬ 
minster Confession. I am not prepared to admit that the state¬ 
ment of that doctrine in the Westminster Confession is essential 
in the form of its expression. But whether it be essential or 
not, is immaterial. I do not care to argue that question, for 
the reason that I firmly believe that “ Holy Scripture is most 
necessary ” in that exposition of the phrase which the context 
and the language demand. I subscribe to both of these doctrines 
entirely, sincerely, and without any reservation whatever. But 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 23 

it is evident that there is a difference of interpretation of these 
two doctrines between the prosecution and the defendant. They 
have the right to prove that their interpretation is the necessary 
interpretation, and that my interpretation is the incorrect inter¬ 
pretation. They have given you no such proof; I have now the 
right to give you the correct interpretation of these phrases. I 
shall consider the evidence offered from Holy Scripture at this 
stage, the evidence from our Standards later on. The question 
to be determined in our study of these passages of Scripture is 
simply this. Ho they show that Holy Scripture is the rule of 
faith and practice, or that Holy Scripture is most necessary, 
and in what sense? 

(1) Is. viii. 20 was shown to be irrelevant in my Response 
last year. I renew my objection to it as follows: 

The passage is incorrectly translated in the version used, for 
the meaning “there is no light in them,” is not justified. The 
Revised Version renders “ surely there is no morning for them,” 
they have no hope of a dawn of brighter things. The proper 
rendering is: 

“ When they say unto you, Seek unto the necromancers and unto wizards ; 

“Ye chirpers and mutterers, should not a people seek unto their God? 

“ On behalf of the living will they seek, unto the dead for instruction 
and for testimony? 

“ If they say not so, who have no dawn, ” etc. 

This passage has no reference whatever to the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures, or any part of them; but is a rebuke of the people of 
Judah for seeking necromancers and wizards, rather than the 
living God (pp. 44, 45). 

They are not warned against seeking God in the forms of 
the Reason or the Church. They are not taught that Holy 
Scripture is most necessary, or that Holy Scripture is the rule 
of faith and practice. The prosecution insist upon the render¬ 
ing of King James’ Version and upon the reference to Holy 
Scripture. But the Church has not indorsed their version or 
their interpretation, and you cannot insist upon them as tests 
of orthodoxy. 

(2) Matt. x. 32, 33: 

“ Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also 
confess before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny 


24 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in 
heaven. ” 

Our Saviour here tells His disciples what may be expected 
in the final day of judgment. Then those who have confessed 
Christ will be confessed before the Father and those who have 
denied Christ will be denied. This passage has nothing what¬ 
ever to do with the mode in which Christ becomes known, 
whether through Bible, Church, or Reason. Jesus does not 
assert that Holy Scripture is most necessary, but that confes¬ 
sion of Him is most necessary. He has nothing to say about 
those who neither confess nor deny Him through lack of knowl¬ 
edge of Christ. The denial here spoken of is the antithesis of 
confession. It is not the attitude of the careless or indifferent, 
or of those who have not yet been convinced of the Messiahship 
of Jesus or of the divine authority of Holy Scripture. It is 
solely and alone of those who have definitely examined the 
claims of Christ and have deliberately and finally denied Him 
before men. If the prosecution think that Martineau is such a 
man, I do not agree with them. But I agree with them as to 
the fact that all those who thus deny Christ will be denied of 
Christ in the judgment. Now I ask the court whether I am 
to be condemned simply on the spider’s web of connection that 
any one may see between this text and the experience of Marti¬ 
neau? Have I said in my Inaugural that men may so deny 
Christ and be saved? I have not. 

(3) Luke xvi. 29-31: 

“ But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear 
them. And he said, Nay, Father Abraham : but if one go to them from 
the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not 
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from 
the dead. ” 

It is difficult to see the relevancy of this passage. It is 
doubtless a true reflection of Abraham that the one who refused 
to hear Moses and the prophets, that is, the witness of the Old 
Testament Scriptures, would not be persuaded to hear one who 
rose from the dead. And yet Jesus Christ rose from the dead, 
and we have the New Testament Scriptures in addition to the 
Old Testament Scriptures. As the sufficiency of the Old Testa- 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 25 

ment Scriptures did not obstruct the resurrection of Christ and 
the giving of the New Testament Scriptures, why should the 
sufficiency of the whole Bible prevent men from finding God 
also in the forms of the Church and the Reason? 

If Holy Scripture is most necessary, according to this pas¬ 
sage, then it is Moses and the prophets that were most neces¬ 
sary. But are the prophets so necessary that we have no need 
of apostles? Is Moses so necessary that we have no need of 
Christ? If not, then the passage does not prove most necessary 
to the exclusion of other things, as the prosecution would prove 
from their use of the phrase “ most necessary. ” 

(4) John v. 39: 

“Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eter¬ 
nal life; and these are they which bear witness of me. ” 

The reference here is to the Old Testament Scriptures and to 
them alone. 

The Old Testament Scriptures certainly bear witness of 
Christ, but that is not to say that the New Testament Scrip¬ 
tures may not bear witness of Him, or that the Church may not 
bear witness of Him, or that the Holy Spirit may not bear wit¬ 
ness of Him in the heart, in the forms of the Reason. 

(5) John xiv. 6: 

“ Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no 
one cometh unto the Father, but by me. ” 

Jesus is the way to God, and, indeed, the only way, because 
He is the only mediator between God and man. But that does 
not imply that all men shall have the same intellectual appre¬ 
hension of Jesus or the same doctrine of His person, His offices, 
and His work. It does not tell us the way to Jesus. Holy 
Scripture is a way to Jesus. This passage does not tell us so, 
and there is nothing in this passage to show that the Church 
and the Reason are not also ways to the Son of God. It mat¬ 
ters little how we get to the way, if only we are in the way—so 
it matters little how we get to Jesus, if Jesus is only our way 
to God. Will any of you undertake to say that Martineau is 
not in this way? Or, if you do, will you convict me of heresy 
because I cannot agree with you as to the question of fact? 


26 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


(6) I. John v. 10 is cited by the prosecution in King James’ 
Version: 

“ He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he 
that believeth not God hath made him a liar, because he believeth not 
the record that God gave of his Son. ” 

This passage was tested in the Response last year. I repeat 
what was then said: 

“ If one turn to the original Greek he will see that the trans¬ 
lation, ‘believeth not the record that God gave of his Son,’ does 
not correspond with the original, which reads ‘witness,’ and 
that witness is not Holy Scripture either in whole or in part. 
The passage is therefore irrelevant to the specification, to prove 
that I am in error in teaching that Martineau found divine 
certainty through the Reason. In that this passage of Hoty 
Scripture teaches a direct and immediate testimony of God 
within a man without the mediation of Holy Scripture, it 
rather favors the doctrine that God may, as in the time of the 
apostles, pursue this direct method with some men in our 
days” (pp. 45, 46). 

(7) Gal. i. 9: 

“As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth 
unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be 
anathema. ” 

I know not what the prosecution would prove from this pas¬ 
sage. But let me call your attention to the fact that the apostle 
speaks of the gospel of Jesus Christ, not of a system of dogma. 
I fear lest the prosecution may unconsciously confound the two, 
and so think that because Martineau does not accept their 
dogmatic system or the dogmatic system of the modern Evan¬ 
gelical party, he has rejected the gospel and substituted another 
gospel for it. But they present no evidence that this is the 
case. It is true that Martineau does not accept our canonical 
gospels in all respects, but it is evident that the apostle is not 
alluding to the canonical gospels in this passage. It is doubt¬ 
ful whether any gospel had yet been written when he wrote 
these words. The apostle is referring to the gospel as the glad 
tidings of salvation in Jesus Christ which he himself preached 
as an apostle of Jesus Christ. The apostle is not thinking 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 27 


even of his own theology, which at the early date when he wrote 
this epistle was still in process of formation; but he is stating 
the essential doctrine of salvation which in this epistle he is so 
grandly setting forth over against the Judaizers. But where do 
I recognize another gospel than the gospel preached by Paul? 
Where do I justify Martineau or any one else preaching another 
gospel? I cannot preach the doctrines advocated by the prose¬ 
cution, or those of the school of theology to which they are at¬ 
tached ; for they are not the gospel. I will not say that they, 
like those Judaizers, are insisting upon a different gospel, 
“ which is not another, ” any more than I will say it of Martineau; 
but I venture to suggest that they are getting into dangerous 
proximity with that different gospel, if they persist in maintain¬ 
ing that the doctrines of their school of theology are essential 
parts of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

(8) II. Timothy, iii. 15-17: 

“And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which 
are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is prof¬ 
itable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right¬ 
eousness : that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished 
unto all good works.” 

I called attention in my Response last year to the fact that 
this passage is-cited from King James’ Version, and said: “But 
the Revised Version renders, ‘Every Scripture inspired of God 
is also profitable for teaching, for reproof,, for correction, for 
instruction in righteousness. ’ There is a difference of doctrine 
here which is of some importance in the use of this text for 
purposes of probation” (p. 45). 

As correctly rendered it teaches the profitableness of every 
inspired Scripture; it does not teach the unprofitableness of the 
Church and the Reason. 

(9) II. Peter i. 19-21: 

“ And we have the word of prophecy made more sure ; whereunto ye do 
well that ye take heed, as unto a lamp shining in a dark place, until the 
day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts : knowing this first, that 
no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. For no prophecy 
ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved 
by the Holy Ghost. ” 


28 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


This passage tells us that the Old Testament prophets were 
moved, driven, or impelled by the Holy Spirit in their prophecy; 
that their word of prophecy has been made more sure to us; 
and that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation; 
but it does not tell us that the Reason or the Church are not 
great fountains of divine authority. It does not tell us that 
men cannot find God through the Reason or the Church. We 
may ask, How else were the prophets moved, driven, or impelled 
except by the Holy Spirit acting in the forms of their Reason? 
And if the Holy Spirit communicated the word of prophecy 
and the divine authority to proclaim that word to the prophets 
in the forms of their Reason, why may not the Holy Spirit com¬ 
municate to other men divine guidance and certitude through 
the forms of the Reason, even if He does not call them to be 
prophets and give them a word of revelation? 

We have examined the nine passages from Holy Scripture 
cited by the prosecution. Some of them establish the doctrine 
that Holy Scripture is most necessary, which doctrine we do 
not deny. But none of them are in conflict with the declara¬ 
tions made in the Inaugural. The prosecution in their argu¬ 
ment use four additional passages, Acts viii. 32-35; x. 35 seq.; 
xvii. 10 seq.; xix. 1-7. These refer to the experience of the 
Ethiopian, Cornelius, the Bereans, and Apollos in their accept¬ 
ance of Christ. Their experience proves that Holy Scripture 
was most necessary to them, in that it was necessary that their 
lower stage of religious experience should advance to the higher 
stage of Christianity; but it does not prove that the unwritten 
but oral gospel of Christ was necessary to them in the sense 
that they could not have been in a state of grace and salvation 
without it. It is well known that these were all pious men, 
worshipping God as He had been revealed to them, and were 
prepared to accept Christ, and did accept Him as soon as Christ 
was made known to them. They present no evidence, there¬ 
fore, of the proposition of the prosecution that Holy Scripture 
is the only fountain of divine authority. And you have no right 
to consider them as against me even if I have failed in convinc¬ 
ing you of their irrelevancy, because Scripture can only be used 
by the prosecution to establish the essential doctrine set forth 
in the Charge. They cannot be legally used to prove that my 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 29 

declarations are erroneous, as you have already determined in 
sustaining my preliminary objection. I am not obliged to de¬ 
fend my Inaugural against these extracts from Holy Scripture 
and Confession, as you have already ruled. I am simply and 
alone called upon to defend myself against the allegation that 
my declarations are against the two essential doctrines men¬ 
tioned in the Charge, namely, that “ Holy Scripture is most 
necessary,” and that “Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and 
practice.” 

The prosecution have no right to use Holy Scripture and 
Confession in these charges further than to prove these two 
essential doctrines. They cannot use these passages against 
my declaration without violating the law of process in our 
Church. You cannot use these passages against me and con¬ 
demn me on their account without a violation of the obliga¬ 
tion you assumed when you undertook to sit as jurors in this 
case, and of the ruling of the Presbytery itself before the argu¬ 
ment began. 

(2) The doctrines attributed to me are as follows: 

(A) “ The Reason is a fountain of divine authority, which 
may and does savingly enlighten men, even such men as reject 
the Scriptures as the authoritative proclamation of the will of 
God and reject also the way of salvation through the mediation 
and sacrifice of the Son of God as revealed therein.” 

(B) “ The Church is a fountain of divine authority which, 
apart from the Holy Scripture, may and does savingly enlighten 
men.” 

(a) The prosecution are obliged to prove these doctrines in 
their specifications, by extracts from the Inaugural. There are 
two specifications under each charge. These specifications con¬ 
sist of four groups of extracts from the Inaugural. These ex¬ 
tracts are properly proofs of some fact that the prosecution 
should state. But what do they propose to prove? They do 
not tell us in their specifications. If the extracts are statements 
of fact such as the law of specification requires, where are the 
proofs of the fact? If they are proofs, where are the statements 
of fact? 

(i b ) But suppose we take them as both facts and proofs of fact, 
inasmuch as they are extracts from the Inaugural. We are 


30 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


then obliged to consider the question of their relevancy to the 
charge. I am obliged to admit these extracts, and you are 
obliged to vote that the specifications are true so far as the 
extracts are concerned. But what is it that they prove? How 
are you to bring them under the charge? Consider the effect 
of these extracts upon the several members of the court. I take 
it that my statement that “Martineau could not find divine 
authority in the Church or the Bible, but did find God enthroned 
in his own soul,” is objectionable to many of you. You may 
think me guilty of error or of indiscretion in making such a 
statement. You might desire to condemn me on that account. 
Would you then be justified in voting to sustain the charge for 
that reason? On consideration you will see that there are sev¬ 
eral links in a chain of argument before you can attach this 
statement about Martineau to the doctrine attributed to me. 
You ought to test all the links of this chain before you can 
honorably condemn me as guilty of the charge. This testing 
ought to be made under the specification. The only way to 
accomplish this under present circumstances is to insert in 
these specifications the doctrine attributed to me in the charge, 
i. e.: 

“In an Inaugural Address, which the said Rev.Charles A.Briggs, D.D., 
delivered at the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, 
January 20th, 1891, on the occasion of his induction into the Edward 
Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology, which Address has been published 
and extensively circulated with the knowledge and approval of the said 
Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D. D., and has been republished by him in a 
second edition with a preface and an appendix, the said Rev. Charles A. 
Briggs, D. D., taught that the Reason is a fountain of divine authority 
which may and does savingly enlighten men, even such men as reject 
the Scriptures as the authoritative proclamation of the will of God and 
reject also the way of salvation through the mediation and sacrifice of 
the Son of God as revealed therein; all which is sustained by the follow¬ 
ing sentences from the said Inaugural. ” 

Only by thus inserting the statement of fact can you vote 
intelligently upon this specification. This is the form in which 
I shall bring the question before you. 

(c) We have simply to determine whether the doctrines at¬ 
tributed to me are sustained by the extracts given from the 
Inaugural. I admit the statements that “ the Reason is a foun- 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 31 

tain of divine authority,” and “the Church is a fountain of 
divine authority.” But I deny all the rest of the doctrines at¬ 
tributed to me in the form and in the language in which the 
prosecution state them in these two charges. They do not prove 
and they cannot prove from the Inaugural that I teach that 
men who reject the Scriptures and the salvation through Jesus 
Christ are savingly enlightened by the Reason or by the Church. 
There are no express statements to that effect in the Inaugural. 
There are no statements which by logical deduction involve 
such conclusions. You cannot hold me responsible for any in¬ 
ferences made from my statements by the prosecution or by 
yourselves, whether such inferences appear valid to you or not. 
There are several invalid assumptions which the prosecution 
are forced to make before they can convince you even by in¬ 
direction of the validity of such inferences. 

(3) I shall waste no time in an attempt to expound the doc¬ 
trines which have been invented by the prosecution and wrongly 
attributed to me, but I shall proceed to the main question in 
hand, namely, whether the doctrines which I truly hold, that 
“ the Reason is a fountain of divine authority ” and “ the Church 
is a fountain of divine authority,” are contrary to the essential 
doctrines named in the charges, or to any other doctrines of 
Holy Scripture and Confession. I shall show you that they are 
not contrary to, but in strict accordance with, the Westminster 
Standards and Holy Scripture. 

My doctrine is that “ the Reason is historically a great 
fountain of divine authority .” Ho I contradict the West¬ 
minster Confession when I take this position? Some of you 
think that I do. But you overlook some very important state¬ 
ments in the Confession of Faith of our Church. It is a happy 
circumstance that in the Inaugural Address itself I defined the 
Reason in the use I made of it. The prosecution recognized my 
definition when they quoted it in their original charge. I said 
in the Inaugural that I was “ using Reason in a broad sense to 
embrace the metaphysical categories , the conscience , and the 
religious feeling ” (p. 26). It seems probable that the prose¬ 
cution do not keep this definition before them when they make 
inferences from the statements which they cite from the In¬ 
augural. This probability amounts almost to a certainty when 


32 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


we observe that they have omitted this definition from the list of 
extracts from the Inaugural given in the new charge; for I hesi¬ 
tate to impute to a committee of Presbytery an unworthy motive 
for this omission. This court should notice this omission and 
beware lest you make it yourselves. You should keep in mind 
constantly that the Reason as I use it embraces the conscience 
and the religious feeling. 

The Testimony from the Standards 

(a) The Westminster Confession sets forth the great distin¬ 
guishing doctrine of the Reformed churches, that the divine 
grace is sovereign and free, far above and beyond human in¬ 
strumentalities, more comprehensive than any limits conceiv¬ 
able by man; free to go beyond the ordinary divinely appointed 
means of grace; free to persist and overcome every resistance 
of sin and unbelief. While the Holy Spirit ordinarily uses 
Bible, Church, and sacrament, He sometimes works apart from 
them and without them. On this principle the Westminster 
Confession bases its doctrine of the salvation of elect infants 
and elect incapables, who from their tender age or their abnor¬ 
mal organization are “ incapable of being outwardly called by 
the ministry of the Word” (X. 3). Such are saved by Christ 
through the Spirit, “ who worketh when, and where, and how 
He pleaseth ” (X. 3). 

This doctrine of the freedom of the divine grace and the 
power of the divine Spirit to work anywhere, and in any place 
and in any manner He pleaseth, opens a gate upon a wide ter¬ 
ritory into which the Westminster divines looked with awe and 
hesitating wonder, but which they left for later divines to ex¬ 
plore as a region of liberty and extra confessional doctrine. 
The Westminster divines did not themselves go any further 
into this new field of the seventeenth century than to maintain 
that there were elect infants and elect incapables, but modern 
Presbyterians have with unanimity extended their doctrine of 
elect infants and elect incapables to all infants and all incapa¬ 
bles; and have also added the class of elect heathen, a class 
which the Westminster divines excluded from the election of 
grace. If any class of persons can be saved by the divine 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 33 

Spirit apart from Church and Bible and sacraments, how else 
can they be saved except by the direct contact of the divine 
Spirit with their spirits in the forms of the Reason? I have 
given a careful history of this doctrine in the little book “ How 
shall we Revise?” and have traced the several stages of change 
toward this doctrine, through which our Presbyterian Church 
has gone on advancing toward the present determination to re¬ 
vise the tenth chapter of our Confession. Dr. Shedd says: 

“ That some evangelized men are saved in the present life by an extra¬ 
ordinary exercise of redeeming grace in Christ has been the hope and 
belief of Christendom ” (“ Dogmatic Theology, ” II. 706). 

“ This (X. 8) is commonly understood to refer not merely or mainly to 
idiots and insane persons, but to such of the pagan world as God pleases 
to regenerate without the use of the written revelation ” (II. 708). 

“It is certain that the Holy Spirit can produce, if He please, such a 
disposition and frame of mind [a habit of faith and penitence] in a pagan 
without employing, as He commonly does, the written Word ” (II. 708). 

I do not approve of Dr. Shedd’s assertion that this modern 
view “has been the hope and belief of Christendom ” but there 
is little doubt that his statement expresses the conviction of 
modern Presbyterians. But if the Holy Spirit without media¬ 
tion of Holy Scripture or Holy Church can produce faith and 
penitence in a pagan, how else can the divine Spirit produce 
these habits of soul, except through the forms of the Reason? 

Accordingly I said in the appendix to the Inaugural Address, 
and I say it again: “ Unless God’s authority is discerned in the 
forms of the Reason, there is no ground upon which any of the 
heathen could ever have been saved, for they know nothing 
of Bible or Church. If they are not savingly enlightened by 
the Light of the World in the forms of the Reason, the whole 
heathen world is lost forever” (pp. 88, 89). This is quoted by 
the prosecution as if it were erroneous. But it states the exact 
truth. 

The Westminster Confession points the way into this terri¬ 
tory of divine grace imparted through the Reason; who then 
shall venture to obstruct it? 

The attitude of the Westminster Confession to the heathen 
and the unbaptized in Christian lands is clear from the follow¬ 
ing statement of Chapter XXV. 2 : “ The visible Church . . . 

3 


34 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, 
. . . together with their children—out of which there is no ordi¬ 
nary possibility of salvation.” We cannot subscribe to this last 
clause at the present time. We refuse to deny the possibility 
of salvation to the unbaptized children of the Baptist churches, 
or to members of the Society of Friends, or to soldiers of the 
Salvation Army, which have no ministry, no sacraments, and 
no church organization. We recognize that there may be and 
that there are possibilities of salvation through the activity of 
the divine Spirit in heathen lands. The faith of the modern 
Presbyterian Church has changed in this particular. If this 
clause “ out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salva¬ 
tion” be an essential and necessary article, the whole Church 
is heretical. But it is not an essential article. We could erase 
this statement of XXV. 2 without impairing the great doctrine 
of this section of the chapter. 

The Society of Friends and the Salvation Army both use 
Holy Scripture as a means of grace; but both agree in using 
also the Reason in religion to an extent far beyond that which 
is common to the evangelical Christian denominations. But 
the elect heathen have no access to Holy Scripture. There is 
no other avenue of grace for them than the Reason. And there 
is no doubt that the Holy Spirit uses the Reason in these cases 
as a fountain of divine authority and through it imparts relig¬ 
ious certainty. 

(b) Some may imagine that the introductory sentence of the 
Confession of Faith is against this doctrine, when it says: 

“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and provi¬ 
dence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to 
leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge 
of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation ” (LI). 

This section is indeed cited by the prosecution in support of 
their doctrine. But this statement of the Confession does not 
contravene the doctrine that the Reason is a great fountain of 
divine authority. The light of nature should be carefully dis¬ 
tinguished from the light of grace. The Confession states how 
far this light of nature goes. It “ so far manifests the goodness, 
wisdom, and power of God as to leave men inexcusable.” I 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 35 


agree to this, but I think the light of nature goes further still. 
It shines from the face of the sun; it declares the glory of God 
from the firmament; it discloses the wisdom of God in the 
order of nature; it unfolds the goodness of God in His beneficent 
provisions for all creatures; it manifests the power of God in 
the irresistible forces of light, fire, and storm; it appears in the 
natural reason, framing all the operations of our mind in the 
forms of time, place, and circumstance, and coloring them with 
the hues of the true, the beautiful, and the good; it is set forth 
in the history of the world, which is the divine education of our 
race. But the Confession is correct in stating that the light of 
nature “ is not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of 
His will which is necessary unto salvation.” The knowledge 
necessary unto salvation can only come from the light of grace. 
The simple question is whether this light of grace shines outside 
the boundaries of the Church, beyond the range of Holy Scrip¬ 
ture and Holy Sacrament. The Confession does not assert this. 
But it does not deny it, and we have a right as Presbyterians 
to maintain the opinion as extra-confessional doctrine provided 
we can prove it from Holy Scripture or from the experience of 
mankind, or from any other valid reasons. The light of nature 
is a glorious light of revelation. It should bring man to his 
knees before God as a penitent sinner. But, as I have else¬ 
where said, “the light of the eternal Logos is a still more blessed 
light; for it is the light of the Son of God, the Saviour of the 
world. The world came into existence through Him. He was 
ever in the world, even when the world knew Him not. He 
was ever coming into the world in the progress of divine revela¬ 
tion, until the theophany and prophecy; historic guidance and 
ideal aim were realized in the incarnate Redeemer.” 

“It is quite true that the Westminster divines did not catch 
a glimpse of this light of the Logos. Their Christology was 
defective at this point as well as other points. They did not 
give expression to this doctrine. It is significant that they do 
not cite from the prologue of John’s gospel, with the exception 
of verses 1 and 14 to prove the incarnation of the Logos. But 
they did not exclude the doctrine of the Light of the world even 
if they neglected it. It is the merit of the Society of Friends 
or Quakers that they discerned this doctrine in the prologue of 


36 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


John’s gospel, and held it up before the modern world until it 
became one of the most characteristic doctrines of modern 
times.” Does the light of the Logos shine in heathen lands 
apart from Bible and sacrament? Does the light of the Logos 
shine in Christian lands to some of those whom the Church has 
driven away from the sacred aisles of redemption? The Con¬ 
fession does not deny it. If the prologue of the gospel of John 
teaches it, the Confession must yield to Holy Scripture. Then 
those who deny it are the real heretics. It matters not, however, 
in point of law, what may be the correct opinion on this great 
subject. Unless the prosecution can show that it is a cardinal 
doctrine of the Confession, that the Logos does not shine with 
sufficient light outside the Church to save men, and that Holy 
Scripture sustains the Confession in this particular, you cannot 
legally convict me of heresy for teaching that the Reason is a 
great fountain of divine authority, when I explain that the 
light of the Logos shines in some cases among the heathen, 
through the Reason, with a divine authority, which convinces 
and assures pious souls that they have and hold the truth and 
salvation from God. 

(c) The prosecution also cite in evidence the last half of 
section 1st, as follows: 

“ Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers man¬ 
ners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; 
and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, 
and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against 
the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to 
commit the same wholly unto writing : which maketh the Holy Scripture 
to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will 
unto his people being now ceased. ” 

This clearly teaches “Holy Scripture to be most necessary.” 
There need be no dispute about that. I agree to it as fully as 
the prosecution. The question is whether the Scriptures are 
most necessary in the sense that no one can find God and salva¬ 
tion without them. This the Confession does not teach. The 
Confession refers to a divine revelation of salvation to the 
Church before the divine revelation of salvation was committed 
to writing in Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture was not most 
necessary to salvation before it was given and written; but 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 37 

only after it was written. It is most necessary to salvation to 
those who enjoy the unspeakable privilege of possessing it. But 
what shall we say of those who do not possess the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures? Are they deprived of the opportunity of salvation on 
the lower stage because others more highly favored enjoy the 
privilege of salvation on the higher stage of Holy Scripture? 
You cannot say so unless you would exclude from salvation all 
who know not Holy Scripture, including the heathen, imbeciles, 
and babes. You must make these exceptions to the statement 
that Holy Scripture is most necessary. But are we shut up to 
these exceptions? Are there none in Christian lands to whom 
Holy Scripture is practically an unknown book? Some are kept 
from Holy Scripture by priestcraft, others by the use that has 
been made of it in the interests of the privileged classes, others 
still by the dogmatic barriers to which attention was called in 
the Inaugural. Doubtless there is guilt on the part of these, 
but in my opinion there is much greater guilt on the part of 
the modern pharisees who have obstructed the access of these 
multitudes to the word of God. What now shall we say with 
reference to all these who for one reason or another have no 
saving knowledge of Holy Scripture? Is Holy Scripture so 
necessary in the case of all of them that there can be no salva¬ 
tion without their knowledge of it and faith in it? I do not 
believe it. You do not believe it. You preach to them Jesus 
Christ and salvation through Him. You do not go to them 
with the Bible and demand of them that they shall accept the 
Scriptures in order to salvation. If they accept Jesus Christ as 
their Saviour they will be saved even if they have never seen a 
copy of the Bible, or have never read or heard a chapter from 
its pages. The Scripture is most necessary as the rule of faith 
and life to guide the Church and the people in the paths of 
redemption until they attain its full salvation; but it is not 
most necessary in the sense that no individual man may be 
saved without a personal knowledge of it and a personal faith 
in it. Christianity is a personal faith in Christ the living and 
reigning Redeemer. 

The more concise statement of the Larger Catechism cited by 
the prosecution must be interpreted in the same way. It is 
true that “ God’s word and spirit only, do sufficiently and effect- 


38 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


ually reveal Him (God) unto men for their salvation.” But 
“ word and spirit ” are combined in this statement. The “ Holy 
Spirit only” one can always say, and also “word and spirit 
only; ” but we cannot say “ word only ” if we mean by word 
the written Scripture; for all admit that some men are saved 
by the Holy Spirit’s effectual calling without the use of Holy 
Scripture. Indeed, that is expressly stated in the chapter on 
Effectual Calling, as we have seen. 

(d) The prosecution cite in evidence section 5th, as follows: 

“We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an 
high and reverent esteem for the Holy Scripture ; and the heavenliness of 
the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the 
consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory 
to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the 
many other incomparable excellences, and the entire perfection thereof, 
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word 
of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the 
infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the imvard work of 
the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by, and with the word, in our hearts. ” 

It is difficult to see why the prosecution cite this passage. 
They overlooked it in their original charges. This section is to 
me the choicest one in the chapter, one which I not only agree 
to, but greatly admire in all its sentences and words. The only 
clew I have to the use the prosecution propose to make of it is 
their italicizing of the words, “ the only way of man's salva¬ 
tion. ” I know not what they propose to prove by this phrase. 
“ What is the only way of man’s salvation?” Is it Holy Scrip¬ 
ture? Is it not rather Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and 
the life? The Confession calls attention to the “ full discovery ” 
Holy Scripture “ makes of the only way of man’s salvation.” It 
does not say that the only discovery of the way of man’s salva¬ 
tion is in Holy Scripture, but that the full discovery is there. 
The prosecution have to substitute their “ only ” for the “ full ” of 
the Confession, ere they can use this sentence to prove anything 
which they have proposed in the charge. 

In point of fact this section of the Confession is in direct 
conflict with that dogmatic theory of the canon, which under¬ 
lies the whole attack upon my doctrine of Holy Scripture. 
This section of the Confession gives the human testimony of 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 39 


the Church its full force as probable evidence; but distinctly 
asserts that the divine evidence, the only one that can give cer¬ 
tainty, is the Holy Spirit bearing witness by, and with the 
word in our hearts. 

Those who are charging me with error are themselves guilty 
at this point, for they rest the authority of the canon upon the 
probable evidence of the early Church. I agree with the Con¬ 
fession in resting it upon the internal divine evidence of the 
Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts. 
They make it a purely historical question, and can therefore 
never go beyond the range of probability in their doctrine of 
the canon, can never reach certainty. They close the way to 
that divine evidence which alone, according to our Confession, 
can give certainty of the divine authority of Holy Scripture. 
And they say that “ there is no other fountain of divine author¬ 
ity than Holy Scripture. You cannot gain certainty through 
the Church or the Reason. ” I said in the passages quoted from 
the Inaugural, and I say again: “ Divine authority is the only 
authority to which man can yield implicit obedience, on which 
he can rest in loving certainty and build with joyous confidence. 

. . . There are historically three great fountains of divine 
authority—the Bible, the Church and the Reason ” (p. 4). 

Those who deny this statement are the true heretics. For 
they would deprive us of loving certainty and joyous confidence 
in our religion. As the ancient pharisees were rebuked by our 
Lord because they shut the kingdom of heaven against men, 
refusing to enter themselves or to permit others to enter, so these 
modern pharisees should be rebuked by the Presbyterian Church 
for obstructing all the divinely appointed means of access to 
divine authority, all the avenues by which the divine Spirit 
gives certainty to men in religion. They would deprive us of 
that assurance of grace and salvation which is such an unspeak¬ 
able comfort in our holy religion. 

(e) The prosecution cite in evidence section 6th of the Con¬ 
fession as follows: 

“ The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own 
glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in 
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from 
Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new 


40 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


revelations of the Spirit , or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowl¬ 
edge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the 
saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and 
that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God; and 
government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which 
are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, accord¬ 
ing to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed. ” 

The part italicized was cited in the original charges. The 
part not italicized was left out of the citation in the original 
charge. A sense of propriety has doubtless induced the prose¬ 
cution to give the latter in their new charges. They may itali¬ 
cize the first half, I shall emphasize the whole of it. For I fail 
to see how the first half can be properly used against my 
declarations. I agree to it without exception. It does not say 
that “ the whole counsel of God ” is revealed in Holy Scripture; 
but only that part of the counsel of God “ concerning all things 
necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life.” 
The statement limits the revelation in Holy Scripture to neces¬ 
sary things. These necessary things are (1) either expressly 
set down in Scripture, or (2) by good and necessary consequence 
may be deduced from Scripture. These are necessary things 
and no others. The sentence now closes with a prohibition 
from adding any other necessary things; for that is certainly 
the meaning of the sentence “ unto which nothing at any time 
is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit or tradi¬ 
tions of men.” That is just the doctrine the prosecution should 
keep distinctly in mind at the present time, because, as will 
appear, the Confession here prohibits exactly what they are 
doing in this prosecution, namely, adding to the necesary doc¬ 
trines of Holy Scripture other doctrines of modern dogmaticians 
which they are claiming to be so necessary that I must be 
adjudged a heretic for not holding them. I certainly do not 
sin against this passage of the Confession, because I am not 
adding to the list of necessary doctrines. My effort for some 
years has been rather to show that many doctrines deemed 
necessary to the traditional dogma are not necessary from the 
point of view of Scripture and Confession. That is indeed the 
underlying issue of the present contest in the Presbyterian 
Church. The prosecution could not have done me a better 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 41 

service than by bringing this passage into evidence, thus 
enabling me to emphasize what has already been said, that no 
one can be condemned for heresy who does not transgress an 
essential doctrine of Holy Scripture. 

The first part of this section has nothing in it in contraven¬ 
tion of the doctrine that the Reason is a great fountain of divine 
authority. But the second part distinctly favors that doctrine, 
for it states (1) that something more is necessary than the 
written or spoken word of Holy Scripture. “We acknowledge 
the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for 
the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the 
word.” This illumination of the Spirit of God is an illumina¬ 
tion of the Reason, or to use the sentence of the previous sec¬ 
tion, “bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.” 
This “inward illumination,” this illumination in our hearts, 
what can it be but in the conscience, the religious feeling, the 
forms of the Reason? 

(2) Circumstances concerning the worship and church gov¬ 
ernment are “ to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian 
prudence.” Here is a field of unnecessary and unessential 
things where there is no light in Holy Scripture and where 
man is left to the use of the reason and the light of nature, in 
which the Holy Spirit may guide the individual Christian and 
the Church without the use of the written Word. This passage 
of the Confession therefore teaches that Scripture reveals neces¬ 
sary things, and that unnecessary things are beyond its scope 
and are to be determined from other authoritative sources; that 
the inward illumination of the Spirit in the heart, in the con¬ 
science, in the Reason, is necessary in any case. 

(/) The prosecution cite in evidence section 10th, as follows: 

“ The Supreme Judge , by which all controversies of religion are to be 
determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, 
doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose 
sentence we are to rest, can he no other hut the Holy Spirit speaking in 
the Scripture. ” 

They emphasize the words which give the essence of the doc¬ 
trine, namely, that “The Supreme Judge can be no other but 
the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” 


42 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


In what respect do I controvert that? Any one at all familiar 
with my writings will recognize that I have been in the habit 
of using this doctrine as one of the great doctrines of the 
Reformation and of Puritanism. Let me repeat what I wrote 
some years ago: 

“ It was this principle that made the Puritan faith and life invincible. 

“ O that their descendants had maintained it! If they had laid less 
stress upon the minor matters: the order of the decrees, the extent of the 
atonement, the nature of imputation, the mode of inspiration, and the 
divine right of presbytery—and had adhered to this essential principle 
of their fathers, the history of Puritanism would have been higher, 
grander, and more successful. We, would not now be threatened with 
the ruin that has overtaken all its unfaithful predecessors in their turn. 
Let their children return to it; let them cling to it as the most precious 
achievement of British Christianity; let them raise it on their banners, 
and advance with it into the conflicts of the day; let them plant it on 
every hill and in every valley throughout the world ; let them not only 
give the Bible into the hands of men and translate it into their tongues* 
but let them put it into their hearts and translate it into their lives. 
Then will Biblical interpretation reach its culmination in practical in¬ 
terpretation, in the experience and life of mankind ” (pp. 365, 366). 

It is not Holy Scripture which is the supreme Judge, it is 
the Holy Spirit , and the Holy Spirit alone. Holy Scripture 
is that in which the Holy Spirit speaks, and He speaks bearing 
witness by and with the word in the heart of the believer. The 
Holy Spirit speaks to the reason of the godly man through 
Holy Scripture and gives him the ultimate decision in all 
matters of faith and practice. 

I never taught any other doctrine. If any one thinks that 
this doctrine conflicts with the doctrine that the Reason is a 
great fountain of divine authority, he thinks wrongly and is 
apart from the true lines of logical reasoning. The Confession 
does not here say that the Holy Spirit does not speak in the 
Reason apart from Holy Scripture, and so speaking, speak with 
divine authority. It says that the Holy Spirit is the supreme 
Judge. He is the supreme Judge wherever and whenever and 
in whatever form He speaks. The Confession is only con¬ 
cerned to teach that it is when speaking in the Holy Scripture 
that He is the supreme Judge, and that when so speaking the 
Church must yield allegiance whatever may have been the 


THE BIBLE THE ONLY FOUNTAIN OF DIVINE AUTHORITY 43 

decrees of councils or opinions of ancient writers; and that 
private spirits must obey, whatever the doctrines of men may 
have been; in other words that Church and Reason must yield 
to the supreme Judge the Holy Spirit, when speaking in Holy 
Scripture. I have not said that the Holy Spirit speaks the final 
word in the Reason to which the Church and the Bible must 
yield. I have not exalted the Reason above the Bible. I am 
no Rationalist. It is the teaching of the Confession to which 
I subscribe, that the Holy Spirit when He speaks the infallible 
word in Holy Scripture always speaks through the Scripture 
to the Reason, and by His inward work in the heart, in the 
Reason, gives certainty, assurance, and infallible conviction of 
the truth and grace of God. There is no conflict between 
Reason and Scripture in such a case. There can be none. The 
Holy Spirit unites them in an infallible bond of certainty. 

( g) The prosecution also cite in evidence several answers to 
questions in the Catechisms which teach that Holy Scripture is 
“the only rule of faith and obedience,” “the only rule to direct 
us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.” 

The only matter charged against me in the original charge 
was that my doctrine was in irreconcilable conflict with the 
cardinal doctrine of Holy Scripture and Confession, that “ Holy 
Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” 
The prosecution leave off the adjective infallible , and now 
charge me with teaching a doctrine which is in conflict with 
the doctrine that Holy Scripture is the only rule of faith and 
practice. Let me call your attention to the purpose of the 
Inaugural. 

The aim of the Inaugural Address was not to vindicate the 
Bible as a rule of faith; certainly not to say anything which could 
directly or indirectly militate against that essential doctrine. 
If that had been my aim I would have made it my theme. My 
aim was to set forth the divine authority of Holy Scripture, and 
therefore the title given to the Address was “ The Authority of 
Holy Scripture.” That was its theme, that was the objective 
point of its argument and its rhetoric. It aimed to remove 
every stumbling-block set up by the traditional dogma in the 
way of the authority of Holy Scripture. It endeavored to set 
forth the authority of Holy Scripture by adducing such evi- 


44 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


dence from Scripture itself as every reasonable man might 
understand and estimate at its intrinsic value. 

It is not charged that I deny the authority of Holy Scripture. 
The complaint is that I do not make the authority of the Bible 
sufficiently great to be the rule of faith and practice. But this 
complaint is without justification, for it is not necessary to 
maintain that the Bible is the only authority in matters of re¬ 
ligion, or the only great fountain of divine authority, or the 
only channel of divine guidance, in order to maintain consist¬ 
ently that Holy Scripture is the rule of faith and practice. 
May not the light of nature have divine authority? Listen to 
the Confession: 

“ Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence 
do so far manifest the greatness and power of God, as to leave men in¬ 
excusable” (I. 1). 

If the light of nature so manifest the greatness and power 
of God—does it not bear divine authority? 

Listen to Holy Scripture: 

“ For when the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things 
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto them¬ 
selves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their 
conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the meanwhile accus¬ 
ing or else excusing one another ” (Rom. i. 19, 20). 

There is a divine law in the heart and conscience of men. 
Paul here teaches that this law is divine, but it is not infallible. 

Is it a necessary consequence that “ the rule” should be u the 
only great fountain of divine authority?” I claim that the 
Reason is a great fountain of divine authority and yet not a 
rule of faith and practice. I shall explain this further on. But 
I am not obliged to explain it. It is the duty of the prosecu¬ 
tion to prove that there is irreconcilable conflict here. They 
do not propose this in their charge. They have not proffered 
any evidence of it. They have simply assumed it, and they have 
asked you to take this leap over a chasm of difference in 
order to give an illogical verdict. 


THE REASON 


45 


III 

THE REASON 

We have tested all the proofs given by the prosecution from 
the Westminster standards and have seen that they do not 
sustain the thesis of the prosecution; but rather bear witness 
against them. Let me now call your attention to the great 
change that has taken place in the doctrine of the Reason since 
the 17th century. 

Christian philosophy has made rapid strides forward since 
the Westminster Confession was framed. The Cambridge 
Platonists, many of whom were pupils of the Westminster 
divines, led the way in this great movement. The result has 
been that the human reason has gained a place in Christian 
theology that it could not have had before. How can we as 
Christian scholars go back to the psychology and metaphysics 
of the Westminster divines? Who will venture to ignore the 
history of modern philosophy, or the achievements that have 
been made in the field of theology in the long conflict with 
Deism, Rationalism, and Agnosticism? The conscience has 
assumed a vastly higher place in Christian ethics. The Meta¬ 
physical Categories have been more correctly defined and ex¬ 
plained. The Religious Feeling has emerged as an original 
endowment of man which lies at the roots of his religious 
nature. The witness of the Christian consciousness is of 
immense consequence to Christian theology. The Reason is 
acknowledged to be the greatest endowment God has given to 
man. It is the holy of holies of human nature, the presence 
chamber of God within the soul, into which the divine Spirit 
enters when He would influence the man, and in which our 
Saviour dwells when He would make the man altogether His 
own. We shall admit that the Westminster Confession is 
altogether inadequate in its doctrine of the Reason. As I said 
some years ago, “ The Reason, the Conscience, and the Religious 
Feeling, all of which have arisen during these discussions of the 
last century, into a light and vigor unknown and unanticipated 
at the Reformation, should not be antagonized the one with the 
other, or with the Spirit of God ” (“ Biblical Study,” p. 138). The 


46 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


divine Spirit uses all these forms of the Reason in His influence 
upon men, making them so many streams of the fountain of au¬ 
thority which He causes to burst forth from the innermost soul of 
man. The letters between Antony Tuckney and his pupil Ben¬ 
jamin Whichcote show how much this venerable divine feared 
the use of the Reason by the Cambridge school in the 17th cen¬ 
tury. This attitude of Tuckney is assumed by conservatives in 
every generation. The same class of men show similar fears at the 
present time. But as each generation of scholars has overcome 
the opposition of their times and shown such fears to be ground¬ 
less, as due in part to old age and in part to the rigidity of 
opinions in some minds, and in part to a natural reluctance to 
accept the new with its consequences of change and uncer¬ 
tainties of result—so the conservatives of our generation will 
be overcome and their fears will ere long prove to be ghosts of 
their oicn fashioning and illusions of their own creation. 

There is no barrier whatever in the Westminster Confession 
to this use of the Reason as a great fountain of divine authority. 
The Confession does not unfold the doctrine of the light of the 
Logos, or the mode by which the Holy Spirit regenerates and 
sanctifies children, idiots, and redeemed pagans apart from 
Bible and Church—it does not describe the activities of the 
Holy Spirit in the forms of the Reason. But that does not 
justify us in shutting our eyes to new light and new evidence 
on this important doctrine. Our subscription protects our 
liberty in all matters not defined by the Confession. Here is 
the open field of extra-confessional doctrine in which the 
Church has not given its decision and where, if it be ready to 
decide, it must make its decision in the constitutional way by 
revision overtures to the presbyteries. “The Westminster 
Confession opens the gates to this doctrine when it represents 
that the divine Spirit ‘works when, and where, and how he 
pleaseth, ’ and it does not exclude the light of the Logos by its 
denial of the sufficiency of the light of Nature. The authority 
of the light of Nature is one thing, the authority of the light 
of Grace is another thing. The authority of the natural Reason 
is one thing, the authority of the Reason as informed by the 
divine Spirit is another thing. The sufficiency of the light of 
Nature is a doctrinal error, but the sufficiency of the Light that 


THE REASON 


47 


shines forth from the divine countenance in the presence cham¬ 
ber of the Reason, through the religious feeling and the con¬ 
science, is one of the grandest doctrines of the Bible, of history, 
and of human experience.” 


I.—Positive Evidence from the Confession 

We have shown that there is nothing in the Westminster 
Confession of Faith which contravenes the doctrine that the 
Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. We shall now 
show that the Confession distinctly recognizes the Reason as a 
great fountain of divine authority. The prosecution shut their 
eyes to seven chapters of the Confession (12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 
26) when they represent that my doctrine of the Reason is 
erroneous. In their original charges they state that I “ strike 
at the vitals of religion” in teaching that the Reason is a great 
fountain of divine authority. I do indeed “ strike at the vitals 
of religion,” but in a sense quite different from that in their 
minds, for this doctrine so strikes at the vitals of religion 
that there can he no vital religion without it. It does indeed 
enter into the very life of the religion of Jesus Christ. It 
strikes at the harriers of dead orthodoxy and barren eccle- 
siasticism and strikes through them to the fountain-head of 
Christian Life. 

(a) There can be no such thing as Effectual Calling unless 
the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The 
Westminster Confession teaches that— 

“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he 
is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to^call, by his 
word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by 
nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds 
spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away 
their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing 
their wills and by his almighty power determining them to that which 
is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they 
come most freely, being made willing by his grace” (X. 1). 

In effectual calling the Holy Spirit acts upon the soul of man. 
The call is by the divine word and the divine Spirit; always by 
the di Vine Spirit but not always by the divine word; but whether 


48 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


the divine word is used or not, in any case it is the divine Spirit 
who enlightens the mind to understand the things of God; 
gives a new heart of flesh for the old heart of stone; renews the 
will, determining it by almighty power to that which is good. 
All these operations of the divine Spirit change the mind, the 
heart, the will, the constituent parts of the inner man. Does 
any one suppose that the divine Spirit enlightens the mind 
without using the Reason? Can the heart be transformed from 
a hard stone to sensitive flesh without using the Religious 
Feeling? Can the will be determined to that which is good 
without using the Conscience? If mind, heart, and will are 
changed in effectual calling, then Reason, Religious Feeling, 
and Conscience are quickened with the pulsations of the divine 
Spirit and animated with new life. When the mind is savingly 
enlightened by the Spirit of God, how can this be otherwise 
than by the Spirit of God speaking with divine authority 
through the forms of the Reason, so that the mind understands 
the things of God on the authority of God? When the will is 
renewed and determined by the divine Spirit to that which is 
good, how otherwise can it be determined than by a divine au¬ 
thority in the conscience overcoming every doubt as to the good, 
and every disinclination to the good? 

In effectual calling, the calling is effectual simply because 
the Holy Spirit enters the human Reason with divine energy to 
work through the Reason effectually in all the avenues of human 
nature. By effectual calling the redeemed enter into a new 
world in which divine authority flows through the fountain of 
the Reason to govern and enrich all their lives. 

(b) There can be no such thing as Sanctification unless the 
Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The Westmin¬ 
ster Confession teaches that— 

“ They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart 
and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and per¬ 
sonally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his 
word and Spirit dwelling in them” (XIII. 1). 

Sanctification is accomplished by Christ’s word and Spirit 
dwelling in them—not by Christ’s word alone, but also by the 
indwelling Spirit; by the word and Spirit usually in Christian 


THE REASON 


49 


lands; but by the Spirit always in every land and in every 
redeemed person. By the word dwelling in us we understand 
not only Holy Scripture engraved on the memory, but appro¬ 
priated by the soul and transformed into principles of holy 
living and doing. How then shall we understand the indwell¬ 
ing Spirit? Where does the holy Spirit dwell if not at the cen¬ 
tral point of our human nature, and where else can that be for 
any intelligent person than in the Reason, where the conscience is 
taught to speak the categorical imperative which is now truly 
a word divine; where the religious feeling is stimulated to holy 
impulses which are as the breath of God to men; where the 
Reason is informed with holy thoughts which are truth from 
heaven; and where the divine presence fills the soul with the 
assurance of a divine authority which is no bondage, but peace 
and joy? There can be no sanctification unless the Holy Spirit 
dwell in the Reason and so by divine authority govern the life 
and conduct. This was distinctly taught by the old Puritans 
in their pursuit of personal holiness. It was imbedded by them 
in the Westminster Confession. This Puritan principle was 
revived by Wesley and made by him one of the cardinal prin¬ 
ciples of Methodism. He committed the sad mistake of inclos¬ 
ing it in inadequate and erroneous statements of the doctrines 
of sin and of grace, and yet it has proved a life-giving force to 
that great organization. This principle has been again here 
asserted with power by the Salvation Army. 

It is very significant at the close of our century, that we have 
a great military organization outside the Christian Church, 
without a ministry and without the sacraments, which seeks 
above all things the salvation of the lost and endeavors to im¬ 
part a full salvation to all people. The Salvation Army has be¬ 
come one of the most powerful religious organizations in the 
world. It has the presence of Christ and the power of the 
Holy Spirit and the blessing of God the Father in its redemp¬ 
tive work. Like the Society of Friends, the Army claims 
immediate communion with Christ. It uses the Bible but it 
does not use the Church. It uses the Reason and especially the 
Religious Feeling, still more than it uses the Bible in order to 
direct union with the Holy Spirit and communion with Christ. 
You will find these statements among its orders for field officers: 

4 


50 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


“ The F. O. must have been converted or changed by the power of the 
Holy Spirit from the old, worldly, selfish, sinful nature to the new, 
holy, heavenly, divine nature; and not only must he thus have received 
a new heart, but he must have the Holy Spirit living in that heart, pos¬ 
sessing it and working through it, to will and to do the good pleasure of 
God ” (Section II. 1). 

“ (d) He has been changed by the Divine power into the image of God. 
He has been remodelled after the pattern of the second Adam, having 
been born again of the Spirit of God, so that now he has become a par¬ 
taker of the Divine nature. 

“ (e) He is possessed and controlled by God. His body is the dwelling- 
place of the Holy Spirit. As God hath said, ‘ I will dwell in them and 
walk in them. I will be their God and they shall be my people ’ (I. Cor. 
vi. 16). Consequently the will of God is done in him, and through him, 
and by him. He lives the same kind of life and is actuated by the same 
purpose as God Himself ; that is, a life of benevolence. God lives for the 
welfare of the universe; the F. O. lives for the happiness of mankind.” 


I do not approve of all the statements of General Booth and 
his officers with regard to sanctification, but in the language 
quoted they state the Biblical ideal and the Puritan ideal of 
our Westminster Confession. Christian life in the Presbyterian 
Church has too often not been in accordance with this idea. Our 
dogmatic divines have neglected the doctrine of sanctification. 
Our ministry, trained for the most part in speculative dogma 
rather than in a Biblical faith, to a scholastic theology rather 
than to a Westminster theology, have failed to honor sufficiently 
the indwelling Spirit of God. It would seem that God has 
raised up the Salvation Army to stimulate us all to seek a full 
salvation and to live Christian lives which are directed by the 
Holy Spirit dwelling in the Reason and sending forth streams 
of divine authority through all the activities of our nature in 
order to make our souls like a well-watered garden, a fruitful 
paradise of God. 

(c) There can be no such thing as Saving Faith unless the 
Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The West¬ 
minster Confession teaches that— 

“The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the 
saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; 
and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word: by which also, 
and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased 
and strengthened ” (XIY. 1). 


THE REASON 


51 


This section teaches that the grace of faith is the work of the 
Spirit of Christ in the hearts of the elect, whereby they are 
enabled to believe. If faith is wrought in our hearts by the 
divine Spirit, can it be wrought in any other waylthan through 
the Reason? Can there be any faith in which the conscience, 
the religious feeling, and the Reason do not share? 

“ The principal acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and rest¬ 
ing upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal redemp¬ 
tion ” (XIV. 2). 

Can there be any “ receiving and resting upon Christ ” if the 
Reason exclude Christ, if the conscience disapprove of Christ, 
if the religious feeling shrink from Christ? It is because the 
Holy Spirit lights up the chambers of the soul, it is because 
Jesus Christ shines in our hearts with light divine that we see 
Him and know our Saviour, as we see and know the sun when 
he rises at the break of day. It is through the effusion of divine 
energy, the infusion of divine life, the suffusion of divine light, 
that sinful man is born of God to live in the Spirit and know 
his Saviour. As an old Puritan says: 

“ Faith then is the gift of God, and the act of man: a wonderfull and 
supernaturall gift of God, and a lively motion of the heart renewed by 
grace, and powerfully moved by the Spirit. The power to beleeve, and 
will to use that power, is of God: But the act of the will in resting upon 
Christ is mans. It is man that beleeveth, but it is God only and al¬ 
together that inableth, stirreth up, putteth forward, and inclineth the heart 
to beleeve. By Gods enlightening man seeth, by his teaching he under¬ 
stands : and the Lord inclining his will, hee willeth, embraceth, possesseth 
and keepeth Christ with all blessings promised in him. So that faith is 
the motion of mans heart wrought in him by the Spirit of God. Even 
as a wheele, which of itselfe cannot move, yet being moved of another, 
doth move; whose motion though but one, is said to be the motion of 
the mover, and of the thing moved; so faith is nothing but the action of 
God in man, but considered in a diverse manner it is both the act of God 
and man : as wrought by God in man, it is the work of the Lord; as the 
motion of man, his heart being moved of God, it is the act of man. 
For the action of man in beleeving with the heart, is nothing but his 
knowing and acknowledging of things, by Gods making him know and 
acknowledge them; his apprehending, willing, chusing, embracing, and 
retaining them, by Gods making him to apprehend, will, chuse, embrace, 
and retaine them” (“A Treatise of Faith,” Ball., pp. 11, 12). 


52 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

(d) There can be no such thing as Good Works well pleasing 
to God, unless the Reason is a great fountain of divine author¬ 
ity. The Westminster Confession teaches that— 

“ Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly 
from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, be¬ 
sides the graces they have already received, there is required an actual 
influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will and to do of 
his good pleasure ” (XVI. 8). 

In order to good works it is therefore necessary that the Holy 
Spirit should “work in the believer to will and to do of his 
good pleasure.” If the Holy Spirit work in a man, how else 
shall He work than in the forms of the Reason? The Holy 
Spirit not only works in the man, but He dwells in him while 
working, in his innermost soul. And where can the Holy 
Spirit dwell within us save in the forms of the Reason? 

(e) There can be no such thing as Assurance of Grace unless 
the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The West¬ 
minster Confession teaches that— 

“This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, 
grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, 
founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward 
evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony 
of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the 
children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby 
we are sealed to the day of redemption ” (XVIII. 2 ). 

The “ inward evidence of these graces,” “the testimony of the 
Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits, ” what is this ex¬ 
cept the witness of the Holy Spirit within the forms of the 
Reason? 

“ A Methodist minister some years ago insisted to me that Presbyterians 
did not believe in the doctrine of assurance. I could hardly convince 
him by reading to him the statement of the Confession of Faith. He 
said that he had never met a Presbyterian who believed the doctrine; 
that Presbyterians only hoped they were saved, but were never assured 
of their salvation. My observations and inquiries have led me to the 
opinion that in the main the Methodist minister was correct. The min¬ 
istry and people of the Presbyterian Church have not as a rule sought 
assurance of grace and salvation as it has ever been their privilege and 
duty to do. The Reformed doctrine, that ‘this infallible assurance doth 
not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait 


THE REASON 


53 


long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it’ 
(XVIII. 3), has induced Presbyterians to rest content with the posses¬ 
sion of simple justifying faith. They have not realized the grace of 
adoption and ‘the testimony of the Spirit of adoption they have not suf¬ 
ficiently advanced in the grace of sanctification and so have not the in¬ 
ward evidences of those graces unto which these promises are made ” 
(“Whither?” pp. 157, 158). 

If the Westminster doctrine of the Assurance of Grace were 
really a part of the living faith of the Presbjderian Church, no 
one could accuse me of heresy for teaching that the Reason is a 
great fountain of divine authority, for let any one consider what 
is involved in this doctrine. It is the assurance of a believer, - 
the making him certain that he is a child of God. This comes 
by inward evidence within the soul of man, not merely by out¬ 
ward evidence from Bible or Church. It is the Holy Spirit 
witnessing with our spirits—Spirit with spirit—not simply the 
Holy Spirit witnessing through Holy Scripture and Holy Sac¬ 
rament. It is the direct and immediate contact of the Holy 
Spirit with the spirit of the believer—a contact which gives 
certainty. What can give certainty except divine evidence? 
What can assure our souls but divine authority? The Confes¬ 
sion distinctly teaches that the Holy Spirit is present to the 
spirit of man with divine authority, and that presence is within 
the man, in his inmost being, his higher spiritual nature. 
Where is that presence if not in the forms of the Reason? 

(/) There can be no true Liberty of Conscience unless the 
Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The Confession 
states the great practical principle of Puritanism as follows: 

“ God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the 
doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to 
his word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe 
such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience is to 
betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, 
and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, 
and reason also ” (XX. 2). 

God is the Lord of the conscience. The conscience has no 
other Lord. The conscience is especially the place where God 
is Lord and through which He exercises His divine authority. 
Liberty of conscience is essential to true religious life and 


54 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


activity. No “ implicit faith ” is required. No blind obedience 
is lawful. The Christian conscience refuses to close its eyes. 
It ever looks upward for authority divine, to enjoy the vision 
of God. Conscience refuses bondage, it is the free-born daugh¬ 
ter of God. True religion appeals to the conscience, the faith¬ 
ful monitor of God within the breast. Let the conscience rule 
the man and God will rule him. Bind him to blind obedience, 
any external authority whatever, whether church or state, 
whether system of dogma or letter of Scripture, and you ob¬ 
struct the dominion of God in the man. The conscience must 
remain free in order to healthful religious life. The Lord of 
the conscience must speak with divine authority through the 
conscience in order that the life may be a holy life. If the Lord 
of glory inhabit the conscience, make it His throne within the 
man, all its monitions will be divine. This is the ideal of lib¬ 
erty of conscience which every Christian should seek. You 
shatter this ideal for yourselves, if you say it is heresy to teach 
that the Reason—explaining Reason as the conscience—is a 
great fountain of divine authority. 

( g ) There can be no real communion with Christ, unless the 
Reason is a great fountain of divine authority. The West¬ 
minster Confession teaches: 

“All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their head, by his Spirit 
and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, 
resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they 
have communion in each other’s gifts and graces; and are obliged to the 
performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their 
mutual good, both in the inward and outward man ” (XXVI. 1). 

The bond between the saints is a bond of faith tied by the 
Holy Spirit. The Church and the Bible often mediate between 
the appropriating faith and the bestowing Holy Spirit; but 
they do not take the place of either the Holy Spirit or of faith. 
Faith lays hold of Christ, the direct object of the soul’s activ¬ 
ities. Faith so unites to Christ as to give fellowship in the 
graces of Christ and in the life of Christ from His incarnation 
to His reign and second advent. This faith so unites with 
Christ that there is direct and immediate communion with 
Him. Christ with irresistible attraction draws faith to Him 
and faith rests on His breast. Where can faith and Christ 


THE REASON 


55 


meet save in the Reason? Faith does not ascend to heaven. 
Christ descends from heaven. Christ presents Himself to faith 
as its appropriate object, as its source and inspiration, as the 
ground of its existence and its certainty. Christ imparts cer¬ 
tainty to faith in this communion; where alone it can be 
imparted, in the forms of the Reason. 

I called attention to the neglect of these chapters of our Con¬ 
fession by the traditional orthodoxy in my “Whither?” three 
years ago. I said: “We have gone over the eleven chapters 
that make up the central section of the Westminster Confes¬ 
sion. We have seen a general neglect of these precious doc¬ 
trines by the Traditional Orthodoxy. The current orthodoxism 
has fallen sadly short of the Westminster ideal. As it erred 
by excessive definition in the first eleven chapters, it has erred 
by a general failure in the second eleven chapters, so that the 
Presbyterian Church at the present time is at an angle with its 
Confession of Faith; and subscription to the Westminster sys¬ 
tem in the historic sense is out of the question” (p. 162). I am 
not surprised, therefore, that the prosecution seem so uncon¬ 
scious of the existence of these doctrines of our Confession, as 
to suppose that I am heretical because I subscribe to them and 
teach them in their historical meaning. These chapters declare 
me innocent and convict the prosecution of heresy. 

( g ) In addition to these seven chapters of our Confession, let 
me call your attention to two important statements with refer¬ 
ence to the Reason in connection with the doctrine of Holy 
Scripture: 

“ The authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it ought to be be¬ 
lieved and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or 
church, but wholly upon God, the author thereof ” (I. 4). 

“ Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine 
authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing 
witness by and with the word in our hearts ” (I. 5). 

These clauses of our Confession give the Reason a very im¬ 
portant office in the use of Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is 
in itself an external means of grace. It is necessary that the 
grace contained therein should in some way be communicated 
to the human soul. Its grace must be transferred from the 
written page and the speaking voice into the heart of man. By 


56 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


the eye and the ear it approaches man. How shall it gain a 
lodgment in his mind and transform his heart? The Confes¬ 
sion represents that only the Holy Spirit can accomplish this by 
His inward work in our hearts, that is, working in our con¬ 
sciences and in our religious feelings, in our reason. The West¬ 
minster Confession, therefore, in eight chapters teaches that the 
Reason is a great fountain of divine authority, and that there 
can be no impartation of the grace of God to men and no appro¬ 
priation of the grace of God by men, unless this grace enters 
with divine authority into the forms of the Reason. You cannot 
deny this doctrine without destroying the great central doctrines 
of our Confession of Faith. 

II—Evidence from Holy Scripture 

We have consumed so much time in our proofs from the 
Confession, that we hesitate to consume any more in the argu¬ 
ment from Holy Scripture. And yet it seems necessary under 
present circumstances to give at least an outline of this argu¬ 
ment. 

There can be no doubt that the highest forms of prophecy 
under the Old Testament dispensation, and the New Testament 
as well, originated by the influence of the Holy Spirit speaking 
to holy men through the forms of their reason. If there is 
anything supernatural in Biblical prophecy, that prophecy, at 
least in a measure, must have originated from the direct contact 
of the divine Spirit with the human spirit. Even in the lower 
forms of prophecy, in the ecstatic state, when the man lies 
prostrate on the ground, or has his eyes closed and his senses 
shut to the external world, the divine Spirit gives the holy im¬ 
pulse, the insight, and the foresight, those great prophetic en¬ 
dowments which enable the prophet to declare the things of 
God. How much more is this the case in those holy writers 
who have given us the sacred Scriptures. Unless they were 
holy penmen with extraordinary prophetic gifts, with super¬ 
natural endowments communicated by divine authority speak¬ 
ing in the forms of the Reason, there is no basis for the divine 
authority of Scripture at all. The Confession recognizes this 
when it says: 


THE REASON 


57 


“Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times and in divers man¬ 
ners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church ” 

(I. 1). 

When therefore I say that “ the Reason is historically a great 
fountain of divine authority,” I am justified by the history of 
divine revelation until the close of the canon, whether the state¬ 
ment be true with regard to later times or not. On this aocount 
I claim that the first charge should be thrown out of court. 
But inasmuch as I claim that this divine authority in the 
forms of the Reason extends to the present age, as for example 
in the case of Martineau, I will at once proceed to set forth my 
Biblical authority for this opinion. Let me, however, say at 
once that I subscribe to this statement of the Confession: “ These 
former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now 
ceased” (I. 1). Nothing has been added to the canon of Holy 
Scripture by divine revelation since the days of the apostles, 
and it seems altogether improbable that anything will be added 
in the future. The question is, therefore, whether there is any 
divine authority in the forms of the Reason for other purposes 
than formulating inspired writings for a canon of Holy Scrip¬ 
ture. 

We appeal to the statements of Holy Scripture respecting 
those outside the visible kingdom of God, and therefore ex¬ 
cluded from contact with Holy Scripture and Church. What 
shall we say to the preaching of Paul? 

“And he made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face 
of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds 
of their habitation ; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel 
after him, and find him, though he is not far from each one of us: for 
in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your 
own poets have said, For we are also his offspring ” (Acts xvii. 26-28). 

Do none of these offspring of God among the heathen feel after 
Him? Do those who feel fail to find Him? Do none of those, 
the root of whose being is in God, look to the root and become 
conscious of that fountain of life springing up within them? 
Or are these words of Paul a fancy, incapable of realization, 
a dream which finds no counterpart in the real heathen man? 

What of the preaching of Peter? 


58 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


«Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in 
every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accept¬ 
able to him ” (Acts x. 34, 35). 

Are there no God-fearing men among the nations who hold to 
the ethnic religions? Are there none who give alms and work 
righteousness? Was Peter mistaken? Does God really respect 
persons and reject a man because he was not born a Hebrew or 
because he was not educated in Christian lands? Was Corne¬ 
lius the only illustration of this profound utterance? And was 
he accepted simply because he might have been a proselyte? 

What of the preaching of Jesus? 

“The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this genera¬ 
tion, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah ; 
and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the south shall 
rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for 
she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon ; 
and behold, a greater than Solomon is here” (Matt. xii. 41, 42). 

If the proud Assyrians, the inhabitants of Nineveh, were not 
excluded from repentance and redemption because they had no 
Bible and were hostile to the kingdom of Israel, why should any 
other metropolis of the ethnic religions be excluded if they 
repent in accordance with the teaching they have? Is the 
Oriental queen the only potentate who has found God by wis¬ 
dom outside the kingdom? True, the one heard the preaching 
of Jonah and the other the wisdom, of Solomon. But there is 
no evidence that either of them accepted Holy Scripture or 
united with Holy Church. 

We appeal to the promises of our Lord. 

(1) The presence of Christ Himself is promised: 

“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in 
the midst of them” (Matt, xviii. 20). 

“Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt, 
xxviii. 20). 

“I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you. Yet a little while, 
and the world beholdeth me no more; but ye behold me: because I live, 
ye shall live also. In that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, 
and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and 
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be 
loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto 


THE REASON 


59 


him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is to come to 
pass that thou will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world ? 
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my 
word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and 
make our abode with him ” (John xiv. 18-24). 

J 

Jesus distinctly promises His own abiding presence with His 
people. If we have not so seen Christ and known Him, it is 
because we have not lived in accordance with the privileges of 
our religion. 

(2) The presence of the Holy Spirit is promised: 

“ And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, 
that he may be with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth: whom the 
world cannot receive; for it beholdetli him not, neither knoweth him : 
ye know him ; for he abideth with you and shall be in you” (John xiv. 
16-18). 

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into 
all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things so¬ 
ever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you 
the things that are to come. He shall glorify me : for he shall take of 
mine, and shall declare it unto you ” (John xvi. 13, 14). 

If we have not the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, it 
is an evidence that we are feeble Christians. 

Consider the teachings of the Epistles: 

“ Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God 
dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall 
God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are ” 
(I. Cor. iii. 16, 17). 

“ Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Ghost which 
is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye 
were bought with a price : glorify God therefore in your body ” (I. Cor. 
vi. 19, 20). 

“ For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves 
as your servants for Jesus’ sake. Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall 
shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the 
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ ” (II. Cor. 
iv. 5, 6). 

“ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father, from whom every 
family in heaven and on earth is named, that he would grant you, ac¬ 
cording to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with 
power through his Spirit in the inward man; that Christ may dwell in 


60 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded 
in love, may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the 
breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ, 
which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of / 
God ” (Ephesians iii. 14-19). 

“ If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are 
above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind 
on the things that are above, not on the things that are upon the earth. 
For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who 
is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested 
in glory ” (Colossians iii. 1-4). 

“And he that keepeth his commandments abideth in him, and he in 
him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which 
he gave us” (I. John iii. 24). 

These are only specimens of a multitude of passages which 
distinctly teach that the Church as a body, and Christians as 
individual members of that body, have the presence of Christ, 
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the power from God the 
Father with them, and that it is their privilege to recognize 
this divine presence and to live under the authority of God. 
Those therefore who deny that the Reason is a great fountain 
of divine authority overlook some of the most important pas¬ 
sages of Holy Scripture, especially those which guide into the 
higher life of communion with the Triune God. 

III.—The Testimony of Christian Experience 

Let me call your attention to my motive for introducing 
the divine authority in the forms of the Reason into my 
Inaugural Address. If you will read the Inaugural with any 
degree of attention, you will see that my purpose was not to 
extol Rationalism or to magnify Martineau or to teach the sal¬ 
vation of the heathen; but as I distinctly said: “We have ex¬ 
amined the Church and the Reason as seats of divine authority 
in an introduction to our theme, the authority of the Scrip¬ 
tures, because they open our eyes to see mistakes that are com¬ 
mon to the three departments ” (p. 28). 

My subsequent use of the divine authority in the forms of 
the Reason was in order to show that the three seats of 
authority speak in harmony; and in order to point to their vast 


THE REASON 


61 


importance for a higher Christian life. I said, and I reaffirm 
what I said: “ The Reason also has its rights, its place and 
importance in the economy of Redemption. I rejoice at the 
age of Rationalism, with all its wonderful achievements in 
philosophy. I look upon it as preparing men to use their 
reasons in the last great age of the world. Criticism will go 
on with its destruction of errors and its verification of truth 
and fact. The human mind will learn to know its powers and 
to use them. The forms of the reason, the conscience, the 
religious feeling, the aesthetic taste—all the highest energies of 
our nature will exert themselves as never before. God will 
appear in their forms and give an inward assurance and cer¬ 
tainty greater than that given in former ages. These increased 
powers of the human soul will enable men to search those 
higher mysteries of Biblical theology that no theologian has 
yet mastered, and those mysteries that are wrapped up in the 
institutions of the Church to all who really know them. It is 
impossible that the Bible and the Church should ever exert their 
full power until the human reason, trained and strained to the 
uttermost, rise to the heights of its energies and reach forth 
after God and His Christ with absolute devotion and self- 
renouncing love. Then we may expect on the heights of theo¬ 
logical speculation, and from the peaks of Christian experience, 
that those profound doctrines that now divide Christendom by 
their antinomies will appear as the two sides of the same law, 
or the foci of a divine ellipse, which is itself but one of the 
curves in that conic section of God’s dominion in which, in 
loving wisdom, He has appointed the lines of our destiny” 
(pp. 65, 66). 

Consider for a moment, (a) What can you do in private 
prayer unless divine authority comes to you in the forms of 
the Reason? How can you fix your mind on God, how can 
you send forth a petition unto His ears, how can you expect an 
answer unless the soul reaches forth with all its powers in 
order to lay hold upon God? And where will you find Him? 
In the air? Can you ascend to Him? We speak of it in local 
relations, but we do not really ascend to heaven—God descends 
to us. He condescends to answer us by entering into us and 
taking possession of us by His almighty presence and power. 


62 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


How can you know that your prayers have been heard? 
How can you know that they have been answered unless the 
divine Spirit gives you that knowledge through a fountain of 
divine authority bursting forth within you? I appeal to your 
Christian experience in private prayer. Are you not accus¬ 
tomed to turn away from the world and fix your attention on 
God in earnest pleas for help or glad thanksgiving? Have 
you not been assured as by a touch divine flashing the light 
you need to see the pathway of privilege and duty, determining 
you to pursue the right course and calming your feelings into 
a heavenly peace? Ro possible influence, of friendly counsel, 
or hostile threats, can stay or deflect the course of the man 
whom God has taught in prayer. 

I cannot understand how any one who is accustomed to 
private prayer, and especially to ejaculatory prayer, and who 
endeavors to follow the guidance of God’s Spirit in his daily 
life—I cannot understand how any such man could possibly 
consent to a denial of a fountain of divine authority within 
his own soul. 

(b) Think also of your hours of religious meditation and pri¬ 
vate communion with God. Some of you, I doubt not, have 
enjoyed such hours when the world has vanished, Holy Church 
is forgotten, the Bible lies unnoticed, and nothing interposes 
between you and God. What heights of religious ecstasy, 
what raptures of heavenly bliss do those enjoy whose religious 
feelings thrill with the touch of the divine Spirit, whose con¬ 
science is alive with holy concepts, and whose religious imagi¬ 
nation sees Jesus Christ in His wondrous grace and matchless 
beauty. Such heavenly places in Christ Jesus are open to us 
because Christ Jesus comes to us in accordance with His 
promise and enters the forms of the Reason, and fills all the 
avenues of the soul with fountain-streams of sweetest authority. 

(c) How can Christian doctrine be rightly unfolded unless 
by a Christian speculation guided by the divine Spirit working 
within the Reason? There is speculative theology which is 
mere rationalizing—there is scholastic theology that is mere 
scholasticism. All such theology is a mere process of logical 
evolution, subject to the errors into which weak man is ever 
falling. But a true Christian theologian who would know the 


THE REASON 


63 


truth of God must be willing to do the will of God. Faith can¬ 
not go far ahead of practice. Theology cannot outstrip life. 
Nothing is genuine in Christian theology which is not born of 
God’s Spirit. How else shall the Christian theologian get the 
truth of God unless he be guided by the Holy Spirit into the 
truth? The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church and in the indi¬ 
vidual Christian for this purpose, giving divine authority and 
certainty of truth in the forms of the Reason. Thus the theo¬ 
logian grows in the divine doctrine. Thus the Church advances 
in its most holy faith. 

I have shown you by indubitable evidence from Confession 
and from Scripture and from Christian experience that “ there 
are historically three great fountains of divine authority, the 
Bible, the Church, and the Reason.” It is an historical fact 
which cannot be gainsaid without closing the eyes to evidence 
which pervades history. 

Early in our century a great revival movement took its rise 
in Oxford, and spread all over the Church of England and the 
churches which are her daughters. It was the Anglo-catholic 
revival, whose essential principle was the recognition of the 
divine authority in the Church. In the middle of our century 
another revival movement spread over the English-speaking 
world, having as its great principle the divine authority in the 
Bible. In the closing years of our century another great 
revival took its rise in the East of London and spread all over 
Christendom in the form of the Salvation Army. This Army 
is the antithesis of the Anglo-catholic movement because it is 
altogether unchurchly. It seeks immediate communion with 
God, divine authority within the soul by the baptism of Blood 
and Fire which come from the real presence of Christ and the 
all-pervading power of the indwelling Spirit. 

I call these three great revival movements of our century to 
witness that divine authority comes to men through the three 
great fountains, the Bible, the Church, and the Reason. Every 
revival movement of the past witnesses a similar confession. 
Wherever there has been vital religion, wherever there have 
been holy men and women seeking after the living God, God 
has given them the assurance of His presence and authority, 
sometimes through the Church, sometimes through the Bible, 


64 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


and sometimes through the Reason. We cannot deny this 
without shutting our eyes to history, or refusing to recognize 
in these revival movements anything but illusions and delu¬ 
sions of pious enthusiasts. I decline to recognize one form as 
genuine and refuse the others as delusions. I recognize them 
all, each in its place combining to accomplish the full work of 
grace in the world. 

Convict me of heresy under Charge I. and you challenge the 
Christian centuries. All the ages will be against you and, in a 
multitude of voices like the roar of many waters, will denounce 
you as knowing neither the truth nor the power of God. 

The Case of Martineau 

I have shown you that the doctrine which I truly hold, that 
“the Reason is a great fountain of divine authority,” is an im¬ 
portant doctrine of Holy Scripture and of our Standards. I 
shall now show you that the inferences from this doctrine made 
by the prosecution in their charge are inferences for which they 
are exclusively responsible, and for which you cannot hold me 
responsible without a violation of the laws of process in our 
Church and without a violation of the laws of logic established 
by God in our minds. 

It seems altogether probable that this clause is directed 
against what I said with reference to Martineau; for the only 
passage cited from my Inaugural which can in any way be tor¬ 
tured into sustaining it is the following: 

“ Martineau could not find divine authority in the Church or 
the Bible, but he did find God enthroned in his own soul. 
There are those who would refuse these rationalists a place in 
the company of the faithful. But they forget that the essential 
thing is to find God and divine certainty, and if these men 
have found God without the mediation of Church and Bible, 
Church and Bible are means and not ends; they are avenues to 
God, but are not God. We regret that these rationalists depre¬ 
ciate the means of grace so essential to most of us, but we are 
warned lest we commit a similar error, and depreciate the rea¬ 
son and the Christian consciousness” (Charge, p. 4). 

I am glad that the prosecution omit Martineau’s name from 


THE REASON 


65 


the charge, and that therefore they make no such imputations 
against him as they made in Specification III. of the original first 
Charge, when they said: “ such as James Martineau, who denies 
the doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atone¬ 
ment, the Resurrection of the Body, the personality of the Holy 
Ghost, who rejects the miracles of the Bible and denies the 
truth of the Gospel narratives, as well as most of the theology 
of the Epistles. ” But they have introduced these imputations 
into their argument; and it appears that they use Martineau 
as a representative of “such men as reject the Scriptures as 
the authoritative proclamation of the will of God and reject 
also the way of salvation through the mediation and sacrifice 
of the Son of God as revealed therein; ” for in no other possible 
way than by proving that Martineau does so reject the Scrip¬ 
tures and the Son of God, can they prove this section of their 
charge. I mentioned no other name than Martineau in connec¬ 
tion with my doctrine of the Reason, and I certainly did not say 
that either Martineau as an individual or the rationalists as a 
class rejected Christ and the Scriptures. I am not responsible 
for anything I did not say in my Inaugural. I am not respon¬ 
sible for any opinions the prosecution may impute to Martineau. 

If it be true that James Martineau denies so many doctrines 
which I hold dear, I greatly regret it. I have not learned from 
his writings that he was so sweeping in his denials as the pros¬ 
ecution allege. The prosecution certainly present no proof of 
it. But it makes no difference to this court whether the prose¬ 
cution are right or wrong in their charges against Martineau. 
These have nothing whatever to do with the case. We are all 
of us shocked at times by his utterances. I am as strongly 
opposed to his speculative errors as any of you. I am not a 
sponsor for his orthodoxy. He is not a party in this case. He 
is beyond the reach of these prosecutors. He is a member of a 
Presbytery in Ireland. They should confine themselves to the 
offences of Dr. Briggs, whom they are able to reach through 
the circumstance that they are fortunate enough to be members 
of the Presbytery of Hew York. But here as elsewhere the 
offence is one in the imagination of the prosecution, for which 
they have no justification in the Inaugural Address. I have 
nowhere said that Holy Scripture is “ not sufficient to give that 


66 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

knowledge of God and of His will, which is necessary unto 
salvation.” I said that “ Martineau did not find divine author¬ 
ity in the Church or the Bible, but he did find God enthroned 
in his own soul.” Holy Scripture is sufficient to give saving 
knowledge even when men do not find it. It is sufficient for all 
men—for the entire world. But all men do not in fact gain this 
saving knowledge from the Bible. I did not say whether Mar¬ 
tineau gained saving knowledge from the Bible or not. That 
was not the question before me in the Inaugural. I was con¬ 
sidering the question of religious certainty, the fountains of 
divine authority. I did not say that Martineau rejected the 
way of salvation revealed in the Bible, but I said Martineau 
could not find certainty of divine authority in the Church or 
the Bible. He says he did not and could not. We have no 
right to doubt him or dispute him in this statement of his expe¬ 
rience. The only question which was raised by me was, 
whether he did find God “enthroned in his own soul.” That is 
a question of fact. I did not raise the question whether a man 
who rejects the way of salvation revealed in the Scripture may 
find God enthroned in his own soul. I did not consider that 
question in the Inaugural. I decline to consider it now. I 
insist that this court shall confine itself to the questions 
raised in my Inaugural and not rove over the field of theology 
generally, under the guidance of this erratic committee. I have 
shown that Scripture, history, Confession, and experience prove 
that there are those who find God enthroned within their own 
souls. The question is whether Martineau was such a person. 
I have said that he was such a person. It is possible I may be 
mistaken in this question of fact. But such a mistake is no 
heresy unless I am a heretic under the general charge that “ the 
Beason is a great fountain of divine authority.” If I am in 
error about Martineau, the example used by me was a bad one. 
A bad example may discredit a proposition, but it does not dis¬ 
prove it. If my opinion of Martineau errs at all, it is on the 
side of Christian love which covers over a multitude of sins. 
The prosecution run great risks of trenching on Christian love, 
if they venture to assert that Martineau is mistaken when he 
claims to have found God enthroned in his own soul. Listen 
to his words: 


THE CHURCH 


67 


“ Divine guidance has never and nowhere failed to men; nor has it 
ever, in the most essential things, largely differed amongst them, but it 
has not always been recognized as divine, much less as the living contact 
of Spirit with spirit—the communion of affection between God and man. 
While conscience remained an impersonal law , stern and silent, with 
only a jealous Nemesis behind, man had to stand up alone, and work 
out for himself his independent magnanimity; and he could only be the 
pagan hero. When conscience was found to be inseparably blended with 
the Holy Spirit, and to speak in tones immediately divine, it became 
the very shrine of worship—its strife, its repentance, its aspirations, 
passed into the incidents of a living drama, with its crises of alienation 
and reconcilement; and the cold obedience to a mysterious necessity was 
exchanged for the allegiance of personal affection. And this is the true 
emergence from the darkness of ethical law to the tender light of the life 
divine. The veil falls from the shadowed face of moral authority, and 
the directing love of the all-holy God shines forth” (Martineau’s ‘‘Seat 
of Authority in Religion, ” p. 75). 

Some of you may stand on the lower legal stage of the Chris¬ 
tian religion and so deny the religious experience of a man who 
can say such things. I cannot do so and I refuse to do so. It 
is plain to me that Martineau has gained a higher stage of 
Christian f reedom and direct communion with God , and it 
is immaterial how he gained it. 


IV 

THE CHURCH 

I declared in the Inaugural that “ The Church is a great 
fountain of divine authority .” I make the same declaration 
in your presence at this time. I shall show you that this 
declaration is not contrary to Holy Scripture and the Westmin¬ 
ster Standards, but on the other hand that it is so important a 
doctrine of the Holy Scripture and the Standards that to deny 
it would be heresy. 

I have already tested under the first charge the nine pas¬ 
sages of Scripture cited by the prosecution under both the first 
and the second charges, and I have shown that there is no 
relevancy in them to either charge. 

I have also considered the several passages of the Westmin¬ 
ster Standard which are also the same under both charges, and 



68 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


have shown that they do not teach that Holy Scripture is the 
sole fountain of divine authority; and that they leave room for 
the Reason as a fountain of divine authority. It seems unneces¬ 
sary for me to review them again and show that they also leave 
room for the Church as a fountain of divine authority. I shall 
use my time therefore in the positive argument from Confession 
and Holy Scripture in support of my thesis. The prosecution 
claim that the doctrine that the Church is a fountain of divine 
authority is contrary to the doctrines that the Holy Scripture is 
most necessary, and the rule of faith and practice. It is diffi¬ 
cult to understand how any intelligent man can leap the gulf 
between these two propositions; or how any Churchman, 
Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presby¬ 
terian, or Congregationalist can deny that divine authority 
speaks and acts through the Church. If an ancient Puritan 
or a Westminster divine could descend from Paradise into this 
Presbytery to-day, he would be filled with astonishment that a 
Presbytery of a Church that calls itself Presbyterian could 
have so far abandoned the faith of the Puritan fathers, as to 
permit the prosecution to charge a minister with heresy for main¬ 
taining that there is divine authority in the Church. I am well 
aware, as was stated in the book “ Whither?” that modern Pres¬ 
byterians have departed far away from the Westminster doc¬ 
trine of the Church and the sacraments; but who could have 
imagined that a man would be charged with heresy for hold¬ 
ing to the Westminster doctrine and maintaining it against the 
errors of modern dogmaticians? It is significant that the 
Westminster Confession gives seven chapters (XXY.-XXI.) 
upon the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments, doctrines 
as essential and necessary to the system of doctrine taught in 
the Westminster Confession as the doctrine of Holy Scripture 
contained in the first chapter. The prosecution do not cite 
against me a single sentence from these seven chapters when 
they charge me with error in teaching that the Church is a 
fountain of divine authority. If this be an error, it touches 
the doctrine of the Church as well as the doctrine of Holy 
Scripture, and one would expect to find something in these 
seven chapters that would give the Westminster decision of this 
most important question. To these chapters I sincerely sub- 


THE CHURCH 


69 


scribe, and I challenge the sincerity of the subscription to these 
chapters of any man who denies that the Church is a fountain 
of divine authority. I shall take the liberty of citing these 
chapters to give their testimony in the case, and it will be 
found that their testimony is in unmistakable terms against the 
prosecutors. 

The Westminster Confession teaches clearly that the Church 
is a great fountain of divine authority (a ): 

“ The Lord Jesus, as king and head of his church, hath therein ap¬ 
pointed a government in the hand of church-officers, distinct from the 
civil magistrate. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven 
are committed, by virtue whereof they have power respectively to retain 
and remit sins, to shut the kingdom against the impenitent, both by the 
word and censures ; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of 
the gospel, and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require ” 
(C. F., Chap. XXX. 1, 2). 

I know that there is an overture from the General Assembly 
proposing to weaken the force of this chapter by inserting a 
qualifying clause, but this clause will not do away with the 
doctrine—it simply shows that the Revision Committee of our 
branch of the Presbyterian Church has in a measure receded 
from the high ground maintained in the seventeenth century. 
But in any case this section teaches that church officers have 
the divine authority of Jesus Christ in their government of the 
Church and in their use of the power of the keys. This au¬ 
thority does not make them infallible, but it does make them 
ministers of Jesus Christ with authority to rule as His agents. 

Unless the members of this court have been called to their 
office by the authority of Jesus Christ, speaking to them first in 
their own reasons in the internal call and then through the 
authority of tHe Church in the external call of ordination, this 
court is no court of Jesus Christ, no church organization, what¬ 
ever else it may be. Unless Jesus Christ has committed to you 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, you have no authority 
whatever to exercise ecclesiastical discipline. You are usurp¬ 
ing the crown rights of Jesus Christ, which He has given only 
to His church, if you with one voice assert the authority of the 
Church and with the other prosecute me for heresy for assert¬ 
ing the divine authority of the Church. There is no need of a 


70 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


heresy trial on this question. If this Presbytery is ready to 
declare that the Presbyterian Church has no divine authority, 
I will at once renounce your jurisdiction. I would refuse to 
fellowship as an ordained minister with a body of ministers 
claiming to be ordained and yet denying that they had any 
divine authority to exercise their ministry. I would seek the 
fellowship of a Church that is conscious of a divine authority 
in its ministry, in its sacraments, and in its ordinances. 

(b) The Westminster Confession further teaches that 

“The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the 
Gospel (not confined to one nation, ag before under the law), consists of 
all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together 
wuth their children ; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility 
of salvation. Unto the catholic, visible church, Christ hath given the 
ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfect¬ 
ing of the saints in this life, to the end of the world : and doth by his own 
presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual there¬ 
unto ” (C. F., Chap. XXY. 2, 8). 

This passage clearly shows that the visible Church is the 
kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; that He hath given the 
ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God unto it; and “ doth by 
His own presence and Spirit make them effectual.” If the 
Presbytery is not a court of the Kingdom of Christ erected by 
divine authority; if you have not been given the ordinances by 
Jesus Christ to administer in His name; if Jesus Christ and 
His Spirit are not present in the midst of you—then you are no 
part of the Church of Jesus Christ at all. I do not think that 
any considerable number of you hold such heretical views. 
But whatever this court may conclude, I declare that the state¬ 
ment of the Confession is a true statement. There is divine 
authority in the Church; it is Christ’s kingdom, He reigns over 
it, He inhabits it by His Spirit, He makes its institutions effi¬ 
cacious, He grants access to Himself through His Church. Our 
Presbyterian fathers rejoiced in such access. Their descend¬ 
ants enjoy this unspeakable privilege. Are we to be robbed of 
our birthright? Are you ready to banish from the official 
doctrine of the Presbyterian Church the witnessing Spirit, 
the indwelling Christ, the living God, in order to incase the 


THE CHURCH 


71 


Holy Trinity in the covers of a book? Shall we destroy the 
Church in order to exalt the Bible? 

(c) The Larger Catechism defines a sacrament as follows: 

“ A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, 
to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of 
grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their 
faith and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and 
cherish their love and communion one with another, and to distinguish 
them from those that are without ” (Question 162). 

The sacraments which we are constantly enjoying in our 
churches, being instituted by Christ, must have divine author¬ 
ity. Whenever we use them, the authority of God is impressed 
upon us by the words of institution and the prayer of consecra¬ 
tion. They are not mere ceremonies established by divine 
authority. They are means of grace, they give something of 
immense value to us. They signify, seal, and exhibit the bene¬ 
fits of Christ’s mediation. There is divine authority in Siis 
signifying, sealing, and exhibiting. There is no less authority 
in what the sacraments set forth than in what Holy Scripture 
sets forth. They “ strengthen and increase faith and all other 
graces. ” How can they do this unless divine authority imparts 
that strength and increase? 

The Shorter Catechism thus describes the efficacy of a sacra¬ 
ment: 

“ The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any 
virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the 
blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith 
receive them ” (Question 91). 

If the efficacy of a sacrament depends upon the working of 
the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit must be in touch with the 
believer in the sacrament, and if He is in touch with the be¬ 
liever, God is in touch with him, and there is divine authority 
imparted in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. 

The Larger Catechism tells us how we feed upon the body 
and blood of Christ: 

“As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present 
in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper; and yet are 
spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really 


72 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that 
worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper do therein 
feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal or carnal, 
but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they re¬ 
ceive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of 
his death ” (Question 170). 

This passage teaches the real presence of Christ to the soul 
of the believer, and that the believer may have and often does 
have a consciousness of the sacred presence while the spirit of 
Christ communes with his spirit. If our Lord is really present 
to us in the Lord’s Supper, is not divine authority present with 
us in Him? and if divine authority is present in Him are not 
all of the spiritual benefits thus received of divine authority, 
and do they not come with certainty to our souls? The Holy 
Supper is often more potent than Holy Scripture in the impar- 
tation of divine authority and certainty. It is thus rightly 
named a sealing ordinance. You cannot deny that there is 
divine author^ in the Church without denying the presence of 
Christ in the Holy Eucharist, without robbing the sacraments of 
their historic value to the Christian world. I appeal to your 
religious experience in the communion hour. Have we not 
enjoyed fellowship with our divine Master at the Lord’s table? 
Have not our religious emotions been quickened by a power 
divine? Have we not felt in our inmost being the divine touch? 
Have we not seen the Lord with eyes of faith and holy love? 
Listen to the testimony of prophet and sage, of evangelist and 
apostle, of martyr and saint, of theologian and reformer, of holy 
men and women in all ages, an innumerable company, whose 
voices flow down the ages, from all churches, from all lands, 
and in every language and tongue, through every variety of 
liturgy and ceremony and rite: 

O Christ, Saviour divine! we testify to Thy gracious pres¬ 
ence, Thy sweet authority, Thy heavenly gifts of comfort and 
of joy, in the sacrament of Thy love. 

( d ) I ask your attention to the first section of the Book of 
Discipline: 

“ Discipline is the exercise of that authority, and the application of 
that system of laws, which the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed in his 
Church : embracing the care and control, maintained by the Church, over 
its members, officers, and judicatories. ” 


THE CHURCH 


73 


This section distinctly says that Jesus Christ has appointed 
in His Church authority to exercise discipline, and makes the 
statement that discipline is the exercise of that authority. The 
Directory of Discipline is the authority under which you are 
now acting at the present time. If you renounce the doctrine 
of the first section of the Discipline of our Church, you vitiate 
any process, even if it be conducted in strict accordance with 
every other section. If you adhere to the doctrine of this sec¬ 
tion, you must bring the case to a close so far as this charge is 
concerned. 

The Book of Discipline claims that there is divine authority 
in the Presbyterian Church to exercise discipline. It does not 
tolerate a specification of heresy which contravenes its funda¬ 
mental principle. It rules the prosecutors out of court for using 
the powers of the Book of Discipline to overthrow the funda¬ 
mental principle of the Book of Discipline. These prosecutors 
deny the authority of the Church to do the very thing they 
request the Church to do. 

The Church is a great fountain of divine authority accord¬ 
ing to the Standards of the Presbyterian Church. There is no 
inconsistency between the first chapter of our Confession which 
teaches that the Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule of 
faith and practice, and the seven chapters of the Confession 
which set forth the divine authority which there is in the 
Church. Holy Church, like Holy Scripture, is an ordinance of 
God, a means of grace, a channel of divine influence, an instru¬ 
ment of salvation, a fountain of holy authority. As divine 
authority speaks to us in holy psalmist and holy prophet, in 
holy sage and holy historian, in holy evangelist and holy 
apostle and holy seer in manifold ways and divers manners, 
yet blending in holy harmony; so divine authority speaks to us 
through Holy Church in all the forms of divine worship, in 
sacred praise, in public prayer, in the solemn reading of the 
divine Word and in the preaching of the Gospel. 

Have you not felt the thrill of the divine touch, the ecstasy 
of the divine presence, and the rest of submission to and acqui¬ 
escence in the divine authority impressing itself with irresist¬ 
ible weight and conviction of certainty when assembled with 
God’s people in public worship? Why do Christians resort to 


74 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


Holy Church if it be not for the regenerating, cleansing, sanc¬ 
tifying, and comforting influences of the divine Spirit which 
pervade a living Church and an assembly of living Christians? 
It is because the enthroned Christ is really present with His 
assembled people. The Holy Spirit broods over them with 
divine energy, and divine authority flows forth from the foun¬ 
tain of the Church in a thousand quickening rills. 

The Church is not an infallible rule of faith. I do not 
recognize an infallible pope. I do not recognize an infallible 
episcopacy; still less do I recognize an infallible General 
Assembly. It became clear when the presbyters overthrew 
the bishops in the 17th century that presbyter might be only 
“priest writ large,” and the history of Presbyterianism has 
shown that presbyter bishops may be guilty of more extensive 
despotism than diocesan bishops. Our Confession truly says: 

“All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or 
particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be 
made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both ” 
(XXXI. 3). 

The Church has no divine authority in itself—apart from 
God. Its divine authority is in that its chief institutions 
were divinely appointed, and that these divinely appointed 
institutions are the ordinary channels of the divine grace. 
The Church is a fountain of divine authority. The divine 
authority flows forth from God Himself, as the sole original 
fountain-head and ultimate source, through the fountain of the 
Church, and distributes its healing and life-giving streams 
through all its ministries. 

Possibly I may engage in a work of supererogation by citing 
passages from Holy Scripture in evidence of the divine authority 
that Christ imparts to His Church, and yet there are some 
minds that are so blinded by prejudice that I might be charged 
with disregarding Holy Scripture if I failed to use it. The 
divine authority of the sacraments and the ministry may be 
proved from the words of our Saviour: 

“ And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
will build my church ; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 

I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever 


THE CHURCH 


75 


thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou 
shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ” (Matthew xvi. 18, 19). 

“And Jesus came to them and spake unto them; saying, All authority 
hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and 
make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe 
all things whatsoever I commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, 
even unto the end of the world ” (Matthew xxviii. 18-20). 

“ And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; 
and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And 
he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all 
of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto 
remission of sins ” (Matthew xxvi. 26-28). 

No one can interpret these words in any legitimate way 
without finding in them the divine institution of the Christian 
ministry, and the two sacraments. 

Paul teaches the same doctrine: 

“ For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how 
that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread ; 
and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, 
which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also 
the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the. new covenant in my blood : 
this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye 
eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he 
come” (I. Cor. xi. 23-26). 

“And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, 
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the 
saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body 
of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the 
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure 
of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. iv. 11-18). 

“For even as we have many members in one body, and all the mem¬ 
bers have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in 
Christ, and severally members one of another. And having gifts differ¬ 
ing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let 
us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; or ministry, let us 
give ourselves to our ministry ; or he that teacheth, to his teaching; or 
he that exhorteth, to his exhorting: he that giveth, let him do it with 
liberality ; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with 
cheerfulness” (Romans xii. 4-8.) 

These passages are only specimens of a large number which 
show conclusively that according to Holy Scripture the Church 
is a divine institution, pervaded by divine grace, and flowing 


76 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


with divine authority in a myriad rills to quicken and enrich 
the people of God. If this court could go so far astray from the 
Bible and the Confession as to convict me of heresy for assert¬ 
ing that the Church is a great fountain of divine authority, you 
would do me a very great honor. But that honor would be 
embittered by the disgrace of a Church ivhich I love. 

The Case of Newman 

I have shown you who the true heretics are, as regards the 
main item of the charge. It is now necessary for me to test 
the invalid inference attributed to me. The charge is that I 
teach that “the Church is a fountain of divine authority, 
which apart from the Holy Scripture , may and does savingly 
enlighten men.” 

It is difficult for me to understand what the prosecution 
mean by “ apart from Holy Scripture may and does savingly 
enlighten men.” I turn to Specification II. of the original 
Charge, for light. It reads as follows: 

“ Dr. Briggs affirms that, in the case of some, the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His 
will, which is necessary unto salvation, even though they strive 
never so hard; and that such persons, setting aside the 
supreme authority of the Word of God, can obtain that saving 
knowledge of Him through the Church.” 

I understand, therefore, that “ apart from” is a milder form of 
“setting aside the supreme authority of the Word of God.” 
Three passages from my Inaugural Address are cited as proof. 
But they do not prove it. The charge imputes to me what I 
have never taught either directly or indirectly. This explana¬ 
tion is sufficient according to law to compel you to vote me 
guiltless, and I might simply rest my case upon it. But I pre¬ 
fer to explain my statement and show you how the prosecution 
pervert it. The citation from the Inaugural and the use made 
of it in their argument show that the prosecution have the late 
Cardinal Newman in mind. He was my sole illustration under 
the head. If they fail in this illustration, they have no other. 

(a) I said that Newman could not reach certainty through 
the Bible or the Reason. I did not say that he did not obtain 


THE CHURCH 


77 


the saving knowledge of God through the Bible, or that thfe 
Church savingly enlightened him apart from the Bible. I used 
him as a modern example of one who found the Church a great 
fountain of divine authority. Nothing whatever was said of 
the sufficiency or insufficiency of Holy Scripture, or of saving 
enlightenment from any source whatever. Newman never de¬ 
nied the sufficiency of Holy Scripture to give that knowledge 
of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation, or to 
savingly enlighten men; and I never have denied it. The 
prosecution make no difference between saving enlightenment 
and certainty. There is a great difference between them. If 
they had known the 18th chapter of our Confession, they could 
never have made such a blunder. Religious certainty is not 
necessary to salvation. Saving enlightenment, the knowledge 
sufficient unto salvation, according to Calvinistic principles does 
not bear certainty with it. As the Confession says: 

“This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, 
but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficul¬ 
ties before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know 
the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extra¬ 
ordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. 
And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make 
his calling and election sure ; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in 
peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and 
in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits 
of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness ” 
(XVIII. 3). 

“True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways 
shaken, diminished, and intermitted: as, by negligence in preserving of 
it; by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience, 
and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by 
God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such 
as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never 
utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith; that love of Christ 
and the brethren ; that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty ; out of 
which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be 
revived, and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from 
utter despair ” (XVIII. 4). 

Simple faith contains knowledge sufficient unto salvation, but 
only a faith which is grown to be strong, clear-eyed, and fruit¬ 
ful has infallible assurance or certainty of salvation. I said 


78 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

that Newman did not get this certainty through the Bible and 
the Reason, but that he did get it through the Church. The 
prosecution seem to ignore this certainty. They say nothing 
about it. It seems incredible that they should ignore the dif¬ 
ference between saving enlightenment and certainty. They 
could not say that “certainty of salvation can come only 
through Holy Scripture ” ? The Confession so clearly teaches 
the reverse of it and Christian experience confirms the Confes¬ 
sion. It is sufficient to refer to the sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper. The Confession says that Christ is “ as really, but 
spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, 
as the elements themselves are to their outward senses” 
(XXIX. 7). 

If this be a true statement, religious certainty is communi¬ 
cated to the faith of believers by the really present Christ. The 
Lord’s Supper is a confirming and sealing ordinance. 

But if any one should say Newman did not find certainty in 
the sacrament, let him consider the further statement of the 
Confession: 

“Unto this catholic visible church, Christ hath given the ministry, 
oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the 
saints, in this life, to the end of the world : and doth by his own pres¬ 
ence and Spirit according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto ” 
(XXV. 3). 

If Christ “ doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to 
His promise, make the ministry and the ordinances of God 
committed to the Church effectual for the gathering and per¬ 
fecting of the saints,” does He not give religious certainty 
through the Church? He might gather the saints by simply 
giving them a saving enlightenment, or a knowledge of God 
sufficient unto salvation; but He could not perfect the saints 
unless He gave them also certainty, the assurance of grace and 
salvation. What I said about Newman is therefore strictly in 
accordance with the Confession. 

The Case of Spurgeon 

The prosecution use the passage from the Inaugural re¬ 
ferring to Spurgeon, under both charges. They harp upon it 


THE CHURCH 


79 


in their argument to excite prejudice against me. What I 
said about Spurgeon may not be pleasing to the prosecution. 
It may be very distasteful to many members of the Presbytery. 
But is it not strictly true? Is it not a fact that Spurgeon is an 
example of the modern evangelical? Did he not assail the 
Church and the Beason in the interest of the authority of Holy 
Scripture? These are well-known weaknesses of the great 
preacher. But he had so many excellent Christian qualities 
that the world pardons his weakness in the matters referred to 
and honors him as the noblest evangelical of them all. It may 
seem strange to some of you that “ the average opinion of the 
Christian world would not assign him a higher place in the 
kingdom of God than Martineau or Newman.” But a little 
reflection ought to convince you that it is so. Spurgeon is the 
hero of the Evangelical party in the Church. He was gen¬ 
erally esteemed to be the greatest preacher of the gospel in our 
generation. His sermons have been of incalculable benefit to 
multitudes. I yield to none in admiration of Spurgeon as a 
master of sacred eloquence. But any one who understands the 
state of religious opinion in England knows that Spurgeon only 
represented a party among the Non-conformists, and that a 
considerable proportion of them would not assign him a higher 
place than Martineau or Newman. He lived to find himself 
in a hopeless minority in his own denomination and to separate 
from the mass of the Non-conformists, whom he accused of 
being on the “ down grade.” He was not a master of Christian 
theology, and, therefore, so soon as he went out of his sphere to 
teach men wiser than himself he made a sad failure among 
those who were nearest to him in denominational affinities. In 
the average opinion of the Church of England, Spurgeon would 
certainly assume the lowest place of the three. Among Roman 
Catholics, the world over, Newman would have the pre-emi¬ 
nence. Among German Protestants, Martineau would hold 
the highest rank. In North America, without doubt, Spurgeon 
is in greatest estimation. I did not assign Spurgeon a lower 
place than Newman or Martineau. I did not say that in the 
opinion of the Christian world he would take the lowest place 
of the three. I did not give the average opinion of the United 
States, or of Non-conforming England, or of Presbyterian Scot- 


80 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


land, or of Ulster, or of the Evangelical party; but I said cor¬ 
rectly : “ The average opinion of the Christian world would not 
assign him a higher place in the kingdom of God than Marti- 
neau or Newman.” But suppose I made a mistake in statistics, 
and my opinion is wide of the facts, is such a mistake heresy? 
Am I responsible for the facts? Am I to blame if Spurgeon in 
public estimation shares the throne with Martineau and New¬ 
man? Is it any merit of mine if he be exalted above them? 
Can I change the facts by my statements about them? Where 
do they find in Holy Scripture the authority for exalting Spur¬ 
geon above Martineau and Newman? Where do they find in 
the Westminster Confession that the modern Evangelical is the 
most favored of the children of God? Possibly the prosecution 
by some cabalistic art or jugglery of exegesis may surprise us 
by such evidence; but they were bound to present such extra¬ 
ordinary facts in order that we might give them due consider¬ 
ation and deliberate answer. Their proofs do not exclude New¬ 
man from the kingdom of God. They do not put him beneath 
the feet of Spurgeon. 

As Christian ministers I ask you, ought we not to estimate 
these three representative Christians of our time with Chris¬ 
tian love? And is it not Christian love to say, we refuse to 
determine which of them has the highest place in the kingdom 
of God? We recognize each as a prophet to our generation. 
We see in each a man who has enjoyed the light of the divine 
countenance and who has reflected in his life and character the 
graces of a child of God. 

I asked the question in the Inaugural, and I ask it again of 
this court, whether in view of all the facts adduced, “ may we 
not conclude, on the whole, that these three representative Chris¬ 
tians of our time have, each in his own way, found God and 
rested on divine authority?” Let each juror answer this ques¬ 
tion for himself. You must answer it in your verdict. You 
must either say with me, “ Yes, we may conclude that Spurgeon, 
Newman, and Martineau have rested on divine authority;” or 
you must say with the prosecution, “No! Spurgeon found God 
in the Bible, but Newman did not find God in the Church, and 
Martineau did not find God in the Beason. They were mis¬ 
taken in their religious experience. They were without God 


THE CHURCH 


81 


and without divine authority for their faith and life. ” You can¬ 
not evade the issue. Your verdict will be interpreted by the 
Christian world as a yes or no to the question. 1 rejoice in 
this issue. Again I say , Yes; and I would deliberately choose 
the company for time and for eternity of Martineau and Yew- 
man rather than of such loveless persons as would cast them 
out of the congregation of the faithful. 

Co-ordinating the Fountains 

I said in the Inaugural that “ Men are influenced by their tem¬ 
peraments and environments which of the three ways of access 
to God they may pursue. ” This was made the ground of a dis¬ 
tinct specification under the original 1st Charge. The sentence 
is cited among the extracts in the specification, and may therefore 
be regarded as one of my declarations which is offered as contrary 
to essential doctrine. It will explain my meaning over against 
misrepresentations of it which were made in specification of the 
original first charge and in the argument of the prosecution. 

I did not say that men were determined by their environ¬ 
ments, but influenced by their environments. Yo man ever 
came to God without the prevenient call of God’s Spirit. Yo 
one ever found God in the Reason until God Himself entered 
into the Reason to make Himself known there. Yo one ever 
found God in the Bible until the Holy Spirit pointed the way. 
Yo one ever found God in the Church, until Christ’s touch 
opened his eyes. Men are indeed influenced by their tempera¬ 
ments and environments. That is a matter of common experi¬ 
ence. All are not Churchmen; all are not Evangelicals; all are 
not Rationalists. But all may be Christians, using each one the 
avenue of religion most familiar to him and most suited to him. 
But in any case it is the divine Spirit who determines when, 
and where, and how the effectual call shall be made; and 
when, and where, and how the transforming grace shall be 
imparted and the infallible assurance of faith bestowed. 

It is said that I am co-ordinating the Bible, the Church, and 
the Reason. The prosecution did not put this in their charge. 
But they have put it into the minds of some of this court in 
their argument and it may influence your decision. 

6 


82 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


I call attention to the fact that I have denied more than once 
that I co-ordinated the three fountains of divine authority. I 
denied it in the Appendix to the second edition of my Inaugural 
as follows: “ I did not say, and I did not give any one the right 
to infer from anything whatever in the Inaugural Address, or 
in any of my writings, that I co-ordinated the Bible, the 
Church, and the Reason” (p. 85). 

I denied it again in my lectures on “ The Bible, the Church, 
and the Reason,” where I said: “The Churchmen have exalted 
the Church above the Bible and the Reason. The Rationalists 
have exalted the Reason above the Bible and the Church. 
The Evangelical party have exalted the Bible above the Church 
and the Reason; but no party, so far as we know, has made 
Bible, Church, and Reason co-ordinate, that is, on the same 
level, in the same order, of equal, independent authority ” (p. 63). 

And again: “ The only persons so far as I know, who have 
ever thought of co-ordinating the Bible, the Church, and the 
Reason as fountains of divine authority, are some recent con¬ 
troversialists who impute to others their own misconceptions, 
or who, after the manner of scholastic logicians, invent imag¬ 
inary opponents in order to show their dialectic skill in destroy¬ 
ing them” (p. 210). 

You cannot constrain me to accept the inferences of others. 
You must in law accept my explanations. When I say, “The 
Bible, the Church, and the Reason are historically three great 
fountains of divine authority,” can you rightly infer that I co¬ 
ordinate the three? How about the apostle John in the 1st 
epistle, v. 8, 9, when he says: 

“ For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and 
the blood : and the three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, 
the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he 
hath borne witness concerning his Son. ” 

Are the Spirit, the water, and the blood co-ordinate wit¬ 
nesses? Listen to Bishop Westcott. 

Westcott argues that the water and the blood refer not only 
to the baptism of Christ and the atoning blood of Christ on the 
cross, but to the two sacraments: “Just as the Spirit is found 
to be personal in His work with men, so also the water and 
the blood speak personally through those in whom their efficacy 


THE CHURCH 


83 


is realized. The participle expresses the actual delivery of the 
witness, and this as a present, continuous action. The witness 
here is considered manifestly as the living witness of the Church 
and not as the historic witness of the gospels. Through believers 
these three, ‘the Spirit, and the water, and the blood,’ perform a 
work not for believers only, but for the world (John xvii. 20 f).” 
“The threefold witness of which St. John has spoken, simply 
as being threefold, satisfies the conditions of human testimony. 
Much more then, he argues, does a threefold divine witness 
meet all claims; and such a witness it is implied we have in 
the witness of the Spirit, the water, and the blood. This wit¬ 
ness therefore is ‘greater’ than the witness of men in regard to 
its authority.” 

Here we have three witnesses giving divine testimony to our 
Saviour, without any reference to Holy Scripture: two of them 
the sacraments, and therefore necessarily the Church, one of 
them the divine Spirit. This passage not only shows that 
there can be three witnesses speaking with divine authority 
and yet not co-ordinate; but it also shows that the two sacra¬ 
ments of the Church bear in them and with them divine au¬ 
thority. This Presbytery will hardly undertake to declare 
Bishop Westcott a heretic, especially when Luther and so many 
of the Fathers are at his back. 

I have now gone over the four specifications of the two charges, 
which represent that the doctrine that there are three great 
fountains of divine authority, the Bible, the Church, and the 
Reason, is irreconcilable with essential and necessary doctrines 
of the Confession and of Holy Scripture. If they are incon¬ 
sistent doctrines, then I am indeed excluded from orthodoxy 
in the Presbyterian Church. If they are not inconsistent, I am 
not heterodox in this particular. I have given you my expla¬ 
nations and my evidence. It is for you to give the verdict in 
the fear of God and subject to the review of the superior courts 
of the Church. Above them all stands the supreme court of 
heaven, the tribunal of Jesus Christ, the only King and Head 
of His Church. 

High over high is watching. 

And the Highest over them. 

In the divine presence I challenge you to make a righteous 
verdict. 


84 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


Y 

THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 

Charge III. is as follows: 

“ The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
charges the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister of 
the said Church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, 
with teaching that errors may have existed in the original text 
of the Holy Scripture, as it came from its authors, which is con¬ 
trary to the essential doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures 
and in the Standards of the said Church, that the Holy Scrip¬ 
ture is the Word of God written, immediately inspired, and the 
rule of faith and practice.” 

I shall analyze this Charge as I did the previous two. (1) 
The Charge alleges three offences. It alleges that the doctrine 
taught by me is contrary to these three essential doctrines—(a) 
that Holy Scripture is the Word of God written; (b) that Holy 
Scripture is immediately inspired; and (c) that Holy Scripture 
is the rule of faith and practice. 

(2) It is alleged that I teach “ that errors may have existed 
in the original text of the Holy Scripture, as it came from its 
authors.” This statement of my doctrine I can admit as fairly 
accurate. But when we look at the specification, notice that it 
consists of a long extract from the Inaugural Address. You 
should bear in mind that the only proper use of this extract is 
to prove the doctrine attributed to me in the Charge, which 
doctrine I admit. You have no right to use it to impute to me 
any other objectionable doctrine. You have no right to vote 
me guilty on the ground of any other objection to my words than 
that stated in the Charge. This is all the more important in 
view of the irrelevant passages of Scripture cited to sustain the 
Charge, which may be interpreted by you in a sense different 
from the true sense. You have no right to vote me guilty on the 
basis of these passages. You can consider nothing but my 
doctrine as stated in the Charge and determine whether that is 
contrary or not contrary to the essential doctrines named in the 
Charge. 

(3) The only question which need concern us, therefore, is 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


85 


whether my doctrine is contrary to any one, or any two, or all 
three of the essential doctrines of the Confession stated in the 
Charge. Doubtless the prosecution think that there is contra¬ 
diction here; and it may be that a majority of this Presbytery 
think so. You may agree with a recent opinion that “ a proved 
error in Scripture contradicts not only our doctrine , but the 
Scripture’s claims , and therefore its inspiration in making 
those claims .” 

But those who uttered these words had no authority to make 
dogma for the Presbyterian Church. Their opinion is worth no 
more than that of other theologians of equal rank. It is worth 
much less than the authority of the much greater and more 
widely honored divines whose names are given in my volume 
on “The Bible, the Church, and the Reason,” as holding to 
errors in Holy Scripture (pp. 215-235). 

You may cite the deliverance of the last General Assembly 
against me: 

“ The General Assembly would remind all under its care that it is a 
fundamental doctrine that the Old and New Testaments are the inspired 
and infallible Word of God. Our Church holds that the inspired Word, 
as it came from God, is without error. The assertion of the contrary can¬ 
not but shake the confidence of the people in the sacred Books. All who 
enter office in our Church solemnly profess to receive them as the only 
infallible rule of faith and practice. If they change their belief on this 
point Christian honor demands that they should withdraw from our 
ministry. They have no right to use the pulpit or the chair of the pro¬ 
fessor for the dissemination of their errors until they are dealt with by 
the slow process of discipline. But if any do so act, their Presbyteries 
should speedily interpose, and deal with them for violation of ordination 
vows. The vow taken at the beginning is obligatory until the party 
taking it is honorably and properly released. The General Assembly en¬ 
joins upon all ministers, elders, and Presbyteries, to be faithful to the 
duty here imposed ” (Minutes, pp. 179, 180). 

In response to this deliverance of the last General Assembly, 
I beg leave to say: (a) The General Assembly when it makes a 

deliverance gives the opinion of all those who may be present and 
who may consent to it. Such deliverance has no more weight 
than the names of such persons can give it. It does not bind the 
minority, still less those who were absent when the vote was 
taken, (b) The General Assembly has no authority under the 
constitution to make dogma by deliverance, (c) The General 


86 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


Assembly has no authority under the constitution to give an in¬ 
terpretation of the doctrine of the Church by deliverance, and im¬ 
pose such interpretation upon the Presbyteries and the ministry, 
(d) It was a gross breach of propriety and a flagrant violation 
of right for the General Assembly to attempt to decide a case 
by deliverance which it had a few hours previous directed to 
be approached by judicial process, (e) The ordination vow is 
just as binding on the General Assembly which imposes it as 
it is upon the minister who takes it. The General Assembly 
ought not to take the initiative in such a violation of obligation. 
(/) If the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
should ever decide in a judicial case in accordance with said 
deliverance, no self-respecting Biblical scholar could for a 
moment remain in that branch of the Presbyterian Church. 
He would need no reminder, still less a process of discipline, to 
induce him to withdraw and connect himself with a Church 
that was true to its constitution and its history. 

I have put in evidence, and have asked you, in order to save 
valuable time, to read instead of reading them myself, all those 
extracts given in “The Bible, the Church, and the Reason,” on 
pages 215-235; from Origen, Jerome, and Augustine, among 
the Fathers; from Luther and Calvin, among the Reformers; 
from Baxter and Rutherford among the Presbyterians of the 
17th century; from Van Oosterzee of the Reformed Church of 
Holland; from Marcus Bods, A. B. Bruce, James Iverach, pro¬ 
fessors of the Free Church of Scotland; from A. H. Charter is, 
moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; 
from the Anglicans, Sanday and Gore of Oxford and Plummer of 
Durham; from Prof. Beet of the English Wesleyans; from 
Alfred Cave of the English Independents; from our American 
scholars, Thayer, W. R. Huntington, Apple, Fisher, Vincent, 
and Fairchild. 

These citations might be increased to an enormous extent. It 
would not take a scholar long to decide between the authority of 
the members of the General Assembly at Portland and the au¬ 
thority of these Fathers, Reformers, Puritans, and modern di¬ 
vines, who have given such emphatic statements of their opinion. 

The court will see the great difficulty of the task now imposed 
upon me in view of this deliverance of the General Assembly. 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


87 


And yet I do not hesitate to undertake it in the fear of God and 
with a firm conviction that I can show you that the General 
Assembly at Portland by this deliverance violated the constitu¬ 
tion of our Church and promulgated doctrine which is not 
authorized by Scripture or our Standards. Your attention is 
again called to the principle established in the introduction to 
my defence. I showed you that it was not sufficient that a 
doctrine should be essential and necessary in your opinion. It 
must be essential and necessary to the Westminster system. It is 
not enough that you, or certain dogmatic teachers, or the General 
Assembly by a majority vote, should declare a certain doctrine to 
be inconsistent with an essential doctrine of the Westminster 
Confession. It must be shown that it is really inconsistent with 
the Westminster system itself. You cannot insist that your 
deductions and reasonings should be accepted by me, if I hold 
the opinion that your reasonings and deductions are false. If 
I can hold the two doctrines without regarding them as incon¬ 
sistent, you cannot make them inconsistent to me. You may 
exact of me that I shall be faithful to the doctrine of the true 
and full inspiration of the Word of God written. But you can¬ 
not exact of me that I shall say there are no errors in Holy 
Scripture, for the reason that the Confession does not assert 
this and I am not bound to your views of consistency or incon¬ 
sistency— but only to the Confession and to my own judgment. 
If the prosecution had claimed and had tried to prove that the 
Confession teaches as an essential doctrine attested by Holy 
Scripture that there are no errors in Holy Scripture, then it 
would have been easy to test every such citation and show that no 
such teaching can be found. In that they propose this doctrine 
as a consequence of the statements of the Confession as to the 
“ Word of God written” and that the “Holy Scriptures are the 
only infallible rule of faith and practice,” they rest their case 
upon the logical consequences of Confessional statements, in¬ 
stead of the Confessional statements themselves. But we are 
bound as • Presbyterians only to the essential and necessary 
articles of the Westminster Confession. We are not bound to 
unnecessary and unessential statements of the Confession. 
Still less are we bound to statements which are not in the Con¬ 
fession at all, but which are regarded as logical deductions 


88 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


from the Confession by a party in the Church. If we are to be 
held to all the supposed logical consequences of the Westminster 
Confession, do you not see that you will be held by the dom¬ 
inant party to the whole system of scholastic dogma taught in 
certain schools of theology? By supposed logical deductions, 
the Scriptures and the Confession will be overlaid by a crust of 
traditional opinion which may go on developing into thicker 
and more comprehensive forms until Confession and Bible are 
buried under a mountain of scholasticism. 

If the prosecution should succeed in establishing this dogma 
of the inerrancy of Scripture as the official doctrine of the 
Church, and all those who cannot subscribe to it should retire, 
how long would it be before they would impose the dogma of 
reprobation upon a weakened and crippled Church and make 
revision of the Confession an impossibility? There are some 
who think this is the real purpose of the prosecuting committee 
and of those who are at their back in this trial. 

Inasmuch as there is such a misapprehension of the facts of 
the case, I must go into this question to some length and with 
much care. I shall first take up the question of the consistency 
of the two doctrines, then consider the Confessional statements, 
and finally give the Biblical evidence. 

I.—What is Plenary Inspiration? 

I agree to the doctrines (1) that “ Holy Scripture is the Word 
of God written;” (2) “immediately inspired;” and (3) “the 
rule of faith and practice.” 

Do these statements necessarily involve the doctrine that 
there are no errors in Holy Scripture? (u) The doctrine that 
“ the Holy Scriptures are the rule of faith and practice ” clearly 
does not involve that “ the Holy Scriptures are the rule in mat¬ 
ters other than faith and practice.” If I find fallibility in Holy 
Scripture in matters of faith and practice, I am inconsistent 
with the Confession. But, in the Inaugural, I expressly dis¬ 
claimed such fallibility. This disclaimer is recognized in the 
citations from my Inaugural given by the prosecution : 

“The Bible has maintained its authority with the best scholars of our 
time, who with open minds have been willing to recognize any error 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


89 


that might be pointed out by historical criticism; for these errors are all 
in the circumstantials and not in the essentials; they are in the human 
setting, not in the precious jewel itself; they are found in that section of 
the Bible that theologians commonly account for from the providential 
superintendence of the mind of the Author as distinguished from divine 
revelation itself. It may be that this providential superintendence gives 
infallible guidance in every particular; and it may be that it differs but 
little, if at all, from the providential superintendence of the fathers and 
schoolmen and theologians of the Christian Church. It is not important 
for our purpose that we should decide this question. If we should aban¬ 
don the whole field of providential superintendence so far as inspiration 
and divine authority are concerned, and limit divine inspiration and 
authority to the essential contents of the Bible, to its religion, faith, and 
morals, we would still have ample room to seek divine authority where 
alone it is essential, or even important, in the teaching that guides our 
devotions, our thinking, and our conduct ” (p. 22). 

The only errors I have found or ever recognized in Holy 
Scripture have been beyond the range of faith and practice, and 
therefore they do’ not impair the infallibility of Holy Scripture 
as a rule of faith and practice. 

But it is claimed that if I recognize errors in matters beyond 
the range of faith and practice, I excite suspicion as to the in¬ 
fallibility of Holy Scripture within the range of faith and prac¬ 
tice. You are entitled to that opinion for yourselves, but you 
have no right to force your opinion upon me. The Confession 
does not say “rule of all things,” but “the rule of faith and 
practice. ” You must judge by the Confession, not by your fears, 
or your impressions, or by the conclusions you have made. But 
is it true that fallibility in the Bible in matters beyond the 
scope of the divine revelation impairs the infallibility in mat¬ 
ters within the scope of divine revelation? We claim that it 
does not. The sacred writings were not composed in heaven 
by the Holy Spirit, they were not sent down from heaven by 
angel hands, they, were not committed to the care of perfect 
men, they were not kept by a succession of perfect priests from 
that moment until the present time. If these had been the facts 
in the case, we might have had a Bible infallible in every par¬ 
ticular. But none of these things are true. God gave His 
Holy Word'to men in an entirely different way. He used the 
human reason and all the faculties of imperfect human nature. 
He used the voice and hands of imperfect men. He allowed 


90 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


the sacred writings to be edited and re-edited, arranged and 
rearranged and rearranged again by imperfect scribes. It is 
improbable that such imperfect instrumentalities should attain 
perfect results. It was improbable that fallible men should 
produce a series of writings infallible in every respect. It was 
sufficient that divine inspiration and the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit should make their writings an infallible rule of faith and 
practice, and that the divine energy should push the human and 
the fallible into the external forms, into the unessential and 
unnecessary matters, into the human setting of the divine ideals. 
As the river of life flowing forth from the throne of God, ac¬ 
cording to Ezekiel’s Vision, entering into the Dead Sea quick¬ 
ens its waters and fills them with new life, so that “ everything 
shall live whithersoever the river cometh ” . . . “ But the miry 
places thereof and the marshes thereof shall not be healed” 
(Ez. xlvii. 9-11); so may it be with that divine influence which 
we call inspiration, when it flows into a man.' It quickens and 
enriches his whole nature, his experience, his utterance, his ex¬ 
pressions, with truth and life divine, and yet leaves some hu¬ 
man infirmities unhealed in order that the revelation may be 
essentially divine and infallible and yet bear traces of the 
human and fallible into the midst of which it came. 

You will sometimes hear the proverb cited: “Falsus in uno, 
falsus in omnibus.” But this ancient proverb has no manner 
of application to the matter in hand. It does not refer to errors 
of ignorance or inadvertence, but to errors of deceit and false¬ 
hood. If it could be shown that the writings of the Old Testa¬ 
ment, any of them, were written with the intent of deceiving 
and misleading men, then we could not trust them as infallible 
in matters of faith and practice. But the errors that have been 
found in the Bible are not errors of deceit but of inadvertence, 
not of falsehood but of lack of knowledge. A witness in a court 
of justice is not rejected because he betrays ignorance and slips 
into errors of detail, which may have resulted from carelessness 
and inattention. His evidence is all the stronger for these 
marks of simplicity and the faults of common people. A wit¬ 
ness who makes no mistake is open to suspicion, lest his testi¬ 
mony may have been prepared for the occasion by his advocate 
or himself. Historical documents are not cast aside as worth- 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


91 


less because they contain errors. No historic document can be 
found that is altogether infallible. Even the Pope of Rome 
does not claim infallibility in all things, in his utterances at the 
table and on the street, in his conversation with his friends 
about literature, art, science, or philosophy, war, or finance, 
but only when sitting in the chair of St. Peter he speaks, ex 
cathedra , as the vicar of Christ, in his official position as the 
supreme head of the Church in matters of faith and morals. I 
refer you to the testimony presented to the court and read from 
“Biblical Study,” pp. 240-243, and “The Bible, the Church, 
and the Reason,” pp. 115-117, as setting forth the views which 
I have held for many years on this subject, and I ask you to 
consider whether they are in conflict with the Biblical or 
Confessional doctrine of the rule of faith. 

It is evident that I and others can hold that Holy Scripture 
is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice,” and yet hold 
that there are errors in Holy Scripture in matters that do not 
in any way impair its infallibility in matters of faith and 
practice. 

(b) The charge of the prosecution is, that errors in Holy 
Scripture conflict with the essential doctrine that “ Holy Scrip¬ 
ture is the Word of God written.” The prosecution may think 
that there is conflict here, but they are mistaken. The reason 
why they see conflict is because they interpret “Word of God 
written ” differently from what I do. They put into this doc¬ 
trine in their original Specification, “true and full inspiration,” 
meaning so far as we can determine—(1) Plenary inspiration; 
(2) Verbal inspiration; (3) Inerrancy. Let me remark at the 
outset that although I admit the phrase “ true and full inspira¬ 
tion,” it is not a phrase of the Confession or of Holy Scripture. 
The only phrase of the Confession used by them in this state¬ 
ment is “the Word of God written.” I hold to the “true in¬ 
spiration of the Word of God written,” but I also hold that 
there are errors in Holy Scripture, and that there is no incon¬ 
sistency between these statements. The inconsistency is in the 
mind of the prosecutors because they already include in the 
term full inspiration, verbal inspiration and inerrancy; whereas 
I use plenary, or full, in the grammatical and historical sense as 
referring to the contents of the words. When we say that a 


92 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


lamp is full of oil, we do not mean that the lamp is oil, but that 
it contains oil in the receptacle which it incloses. When I say 
the Scriptures are full of divine inspiration, I mean that the 
Scriptures as writings are filled full with an inspired rule of 
faith and practice, which rule fills and pervades Scripture in all 
its parts. I have the authority of John Wallis, a clerk of the 
Westminster Assembly, for this view, when he says: 

“ The Scriptures in themselves are a Lanthorn rather than a Light; 
they shine, indeed, but it is alieno lumine; it is not their own, but a 
borrowed light. It is God which is the true light that shines to us in the 
Scriptures; and they have no other light in them, but as they represent 
to us somewhat of God, and as they exhibit and hold forth God to us, 
who is the true light that ‘ enlighteneth every man that comes into the 
world. ’ It is a light, then, as it represents God unto us, who is the orig¬ 
inal light. It transmits some rays ; some beams of the divine nature ; 
but they are refracted, or else we should not be able to behold them. 
They lose much of their original lustre by passing through this medium, 
and appear not so glorious to us as they are in themselves. They repre¬ 
sent God’s simplicity obliquated and refracted, by reason of many inad¬ 
equate conceptions; God condescending to the weakness of our capacity 
to speak to us in our own dialect” (John Wallis, “Sermon,” Lond., 1791, 
pp. 127, 128). 

I apprehend that Wallis is a greater authority for interpret¬ 
ing the Westminster Confession than any American theologian 
or than the last General Assembly at Portland. It is evident, 
therefore, that there is no logical inconsistency between these 
statements unless you put into the phrase “ plenary or full ” all 
that you wish to find there in the way of verbal inspiration and 
inerrancy. If you do this I challenge your proofs from Holy 
Scripture and Confession. 


The Will of God Committed to Writing 
(a) The Confession represents that— 

“ Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, 
to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and 
afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and 
for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the 
corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to 
commit the same wholly unto writing ” (I. 1). 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 93 

This teaches that God “committed wholly unto writing” 
“that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary 
unto salvation.” This statement I sincerely adopt. But note 
what was committed “ wholly unto writing: ” “ the knowledge 
of God and of his will which is necessary unto salvation ”— 
nothing more; not the knowledge of geography, not the knowl¬ 
edge of chronology, not the knowledge of correct citations, not 
exactness in names of persons and things, unless you can prove 
that these are necessary to salvation. This statement of the 
Confession amounts to nothing more than “ rule of faith and 
practice; ” it is hardly as much, because there are some matters 
of faith and practice which may not be necessary to salvation. 
This statement does not touch upon knowledge not necessary to 
salvation. If there are errors in such matters as are not neces¬ 
sary to salvation, what has that to do with this passage? When 
it is said that God committed that wholly unto writing, does it 
teach that God Himself committed to writing, or does it imply 
the use of holy penmen? Manifestly the latter. If then God 
used holy penmen to commit this knowledge to writing, you 
cannot conclude that these penmen did not commit to writing, 
together with this knowledge of God necessary to salvation, 
other knowledge which was not necessary to salvation; and if 
so, you cannot conclude that there were no errors in that matter 
which these men wrote, unless you can also prove that God 
commissioned them to commit this also to writing. You can¬ 
not prove any such thing from this passage of the Confession 
which limits itself to “knowledge necessary to salvation.” 
Further, “ commit to writing ” does not imply any more than 
that this knowledge of God necessary to salvation is wholly in 
these writings. It does not imply that the words which contain 
this knowledge are inspired, or that they may not be connected 
with human and fallible material. 

“ The Word of God Written ” 

(h) The phrase, “ the Word of God written,” in the first clause 
of Section 2d of Chapter I., seems to have great importance 
in the minds of the prosecution. I fail to see what use they 
can make of it in proof of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture. 


94 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


This section gives a list of the canonical books of Holy Scrip¬ 
ture and prefaces the list with the statement, “ Under the name 
of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now con¬ 
tained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are 
these,” etc. 

This is a comprehensive statement which simply amounts to 
this: that Genesis, Exodus, and so forth, are books of Holy 
Scripture, that is, “ the Word of God written.” “ Word of God 
written” is only an explanation of the term “Holy Scripture.” 
It may be that the prosecution have in mind some hidden sense 
of this passage which they have not yet brought out to the light 
of day, but, with the best study that I can give it, it amounts 
to nothing more than that Genesis is the written Word of God, 
Exodus is the written Word of God, that is, is Holy Scripture, 
etc., etc. I certainly hold to this. Genesis, Exodus, and the 
entire list of writings given in this section are the Word of 
God, constituent parts of Holy Scripture. I do not know why 
the prosecution cite this phrase unless they think that it is con¬ 
trary to my statement when I say: “ The Bible, as a book, is 
paper, print, and binding—nothing more. It is entitled to rev¬ 
erent handling for the sake of its holy contents because it con¬ 
tains the divine word of redemption for man, and not for any 
other reason whatever ” (p. 30). This extract was used in the 
original Specification. It is left out of the present Charge. But 
was the Bible, as written by the sacred penmen, a book with 
paper, print, and binding? We think not. All these are quite 
modern. What printer was ever inspired, what paper-maker 
ever communicated divine authority to the paper, what binder 
ever imparted salvation through his tools to the binding? I 
gave the true reason for reverent handling of the Bible. My 
language indeed is only a paraphrase of the first section of the 
Confession. The Confession says: “ It pleased God to commit 
the knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary unto 
salvation wholly unto writing.” I said: “for the sake of its 
holy contents because it contains the word of redemption for 
man.” I do not see how my language could be any nearer to 
the Confessional language unless I cited the Confession word 
for word. 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


95 


Holy Scripture is the Word of God 

( c ) The prosecution cite Section 4th in order to prove that the 
Confession teaches that Holy Scripture is “the Word of God.” 
There can be no doubt of this. The prosecution seem to inter¬ 
pret it as if it meant that Holy Scripture is so the Word of God 
that every sentence and word in it is divine and infallible. But 
the Confession certainly does not say this, and it evidently does 
not mean this. 

I have shown that we cannot take the statement of one of the 
three doctrinal standards as of essential importance unless it 
correspond with the statements of the other documents, and that 
we must so interpret the varying phrases of the three standards 
as to get a doctrine which will be consistent with the phrasing 
of them all. The Larger Catechism teaches that “ the Holy 
Scriptures of the Old and Hew Testaments are the Word of 
God, the only rule of faith and obedience.” But the Shorter 
Catechism, the last of the three documents to be composed, and 
which presupposes the other two, teaches that “the Word of 
God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and Hew 
Testaments is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify 
and enjoy him.” It is evident, therefore, that the Westminster 
doctrine of Holy Scripture must be so constructed as to enable 
us to say, “the Bible contains the Word of God,” as well as 
to say, “is the Word.” There are two extremes of statement 
which are both inconsistent with the Westminster statement. 
If, on the one hand, you take the statement of the Shorter 
Catechism and say, Holy Scripture contains the Word of God 
in its chief doctrines, but there are some doctrines of faith and 
rules of life wdiich are not the Word of God; then you cannot 
subscribe to the statement, “is the Word of God.” So, on the 
other hand, if you take the statement of the Larger Catechism 
in such a sense as to say, Holy Scripture is the Word of God 
in all its parts, thoughts and words, sentences and linguistic 
expression,then you cannot subscribe to the statement, “ contains 
the Word of God.” The true Westminster doctrine is the same 
that we have already seen, that the Bible contains the Word of 
God in that it contains the rule of faith and practice, and it is 
the Word of God because this rule of faith and practice so fills 


96 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


and pervades and controls Holy Scripture as to make it to all 
intents and purposes the Word of God. As a Westminster 
divine well says: 

“For the Scripture stands not in cortice verborum, but in medulla 
sensus, it’s the same wine in this vessel which was drawn out of that.” 

I can sincerely subscribe to both statements, “is the Word of 
God,” and “contains the Word of God,” but I challenge the 
subscription to the words “contains the Word of God” on the 
part of those who insist that “is the Word of God” means 
verbal inspiration and inerrancy in every particular. I chal¬ 
lenge the subscription to the clause “contains the Word of 
God” by the prosecution, when they say: 

“God is the arranger of its clauses, the chooser of its terms, and the 
speller of its words so that the text in its letters, words, or clauses is just 
as divine as the thought” (Stenographer’s Report, p. 558). 

The blind zeal with which some have recently insisted upon “ is 
the Word of God” reminds us of Luther’s uncharitable conduct 
at the conference at Marburg. To use the words of Dr. Schaff: 

“ Luther first rose, and declared emphatically that he would not change 
his opinion on the real presence in the least, but stand fast on it to the 
end of life. He called upon the Swiss to prove the absence of Christ, 
but protested at the outset against arguments derived from reason and 
geometry. To give pictorial emphasis to his declaration, he wrote with 
a piece of chalk on the table in large characters the words of institution, 
with which he was determined to stand or fall: Hoc est corpus Meum ” 
(“History of the Christian Church,” VI., p. 640). 

We well know the evil consequences of a divided and dis¬ 
tracted Protestantism which resulted from this intolerant and 
opinionated conduct of the great reformer. Shall we allow 
men who are pigmies alongside of Luther to plunge our Pres¬ 
byterian Church into distraction and division by the entering 
edge of the copula “ is” ? In the usage of language, this little 
word “ is” is capable of a variety of interpretations. “ This is 
my body” in the words of Jesus is of infinitely more consequence 
than “ Holy Scripture is the Word of God” in our Confession of 
Faith. Give heed to the warning of history. 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


9? 


Immediately Inspired 

(d) The prosecution cite Section 8th in order to prove the infal¬ 
libility of the original text of Scripture. The Confession teaches 
that— 

“ The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being 
immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence 
kept pure in all ages, are therefore autlientical; so as in all controversies 
of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them” (I. 8). 

There are three affirmations here: (1) that the original text 
was immediately inspired by God; (2) that they have been kept 
pure in all ages and are therefore authentical; (3) they are the 
final appeal in all controversies of religion. The third state¬ 
ment gives the scope of the others. The Scriptures are the final 
appeal in religious controversies; matters of faith and practice, 
not for questions of science. Those who have resorted to the 
Bible to prove that the sun moved round the earth, that the earth 
could not be circumnavigated, that the universe was created in 
six days of twenty-four hours, and the like, have surely gone 
beyond the range of the Westminster Confession, which specifies 
controversies of religion. Those zealous defenders of the infalli¬ 
bility of the Scriptures in other like matters of detail outside of 
the range of religious controversies, apart from matters of faith 
and practice, will ere long be convicted of similar error. (See 
further the evidence presented in “ The Bible, the Church, and 
the Reason,” pp. 95 seq.) 

(1) The prosecution emphasizes the phrase “being imme¬ 
diately inspired by God,” which indeed they include in the 
Charge itself in the clause “immediately inspired.” The Con¬ 
fession states that “the Old Testament in Hebrew and the 
New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God.” 

It is evident that the prosecution rest their case upon the 
adverb “immediately.” What does it mean in this passage? 
“ Immediately” does not refer to the time when the Holy Scrip¬ 
tures were composed, and therefore it has nothing whatever to 
do with the original autographs. The Confession does not say, 
“ having been immediately inspired by God, ” referring to their 
origin in the past, but “being immediately inspired by God,” 
7 


93 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


alluding to their present condition. The doctrine is that the 
Hebrew and Greek copies, as we now have them in our hands, 
are immediately inspired by God; they have within them the 
divine grace of inspiration, and it is there immediately from 
God as compared with the translations from the Greek and 
Hebrew originals, where the inspiration is mediately from God, 
namely, through the medium of these originals. That this is 
the meaning of the Confession is clear from the controversial 
literature of the times when the Confession was composed. 
Let me quote from William Lyford, one of the most honored 
divines among the English Presbyterians and one whose name 
and authority were of the first to the authors of our Standards: 

“ Thus that Jesuite, with whom Doctor White has to doe, layes this for 
his first conclusion (namely) that the scriptures alone, especially as 
translated into the English Tongue, cannot he the rule of Faith : He gives 
two Reasons for his Assertion; The first is, because these Translations 
are not infallible, as the Rule of Faith must be; for neither were the 
Scriptures immediately written by the Holy Ghost in our language, 
neither were the Translators assisted by the Spirit infallible, as appears 
by the often change, and correcting of the Translations, which shews 
that some of them were defective.—How can an unlearned man be sure, 
that this Translation, which now I have, or you have, does not erre, un¬ 
less you admit the Authority of the Church, to assure us, that such and 
such a Translation doth not erre? 

“ For answer hereunto, I lay down these two Conclusions: First, that 
Divine Truth in English, is as truly the Word of God, as the same Scrip¬ 
tures delivered in the Originall Hebrew or Greek; yet with this differ¬ 
ence, that the same is perfectly, immediately, and most absolutely in the 
Originall Hebrew and Greek, in other Translations, as the vessels wherein 
it is presented to us, and as far forth as they agree with the Originalls: 
And every Translation agreeing with the Originalls in the matter, is the 
same Canonicall Scripture that Hebrew or Greek is, even as it is the 
same Water, which is in the Fountain, and in the Stream; We say this 
is the Water of such or such a Well, or Spring, because it came from 
thence; so it is in this business, when the Apostles spake the wonderfull 
works of God in the language of all Nations (that were at Jerusalem) 
wherein they were born; the Doctrine was the same to all, of the same 
Truth and Divine Authority in the severall Languages : And this Doctrine 
is the Rule we seek for, and the foundation upon which our Religion is 
grounded, and it is all one thing, whether it be brought to my under¬ 
standing in Welch, or English, or Greek, or Latine: all Language, or 
Writing, is but the Vessell, the Symbole, or Declaration of the Rule, not 
the Rule itself: It is a certain form or means by which the Divine Truth 
cometh unto us, as things are contained in their words, and because the 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


99 


Doctrine and matter of the Text is not made known unto me but by¬ 
words, and a language which I understand; therefore I say, the Scrip¬ 
ture in English is the rule and ground of my faith, whereupon I relying, 
have not a humane, but a divine Authority for my Faith. Even as an 
unbeliever coming to our Sermons, is convinced of all , and judged of all , 
and he will acknowledge the Divine Truth of God, although by a humane 
voice in preaching, it be conveyed unto him, so we enjoy the infallible 
Doctrine of the Scripture, although by a mans Translation it be mani¬ 
fested to me ” (“ Plain Mans Senses”—Lyford, pp. 48, 49). 

It is evident, therefore, that the adverb “ immediately” gives 
the prosecution no support for their doctrine that the original 
autographs were without error. It has nothing whatever to 
do with such autographs. 

(2) There is an important phrase in this section which the 
prosecution do not emphasize and which they do not insert in 
the Charge. This phrase gives irresistible witness against 
them. It is the following: “By his singular care and provi¬ 
dence, kept pure in all ages.” The statement is that the Greek 
New Testament and the Hebrew Old Testament have been kept 
pure in all ages by the singular care and providence of God, 
and are authentical. They are authentic for their purpose 
as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, to determine 
controversies of religion. They have been kept pure by divine 
providence in all ages for this purpose. Those who use this 
passage in order to prove the inerrancy of Scripture in every 
particular make several inferences which are not justified. 
They have no right to infer that the adjective “ pure” means 
inerrant in every particular. Pure, yes, for its purpose of 
grace and salvation. Pure, yes, to determine infallibly con¬ 
troversies of religion. Pure, yes, to give the infallible rule of 
faith and practice and to determine every question of religion, 
doctrine, and morals. Pure, yes, so that these great purposes 
of the grace of God shall in no wise be contaminated, or colored, 
or warped, or changed in the slightest particular; but not pure 
in the sense that every sentence, word, and letter of our present 
Greek and Hebrew text is absolutely errorless and inerrant. 
The Westminster divines knew as well as we do that the accents 
and vowel-points of the Hebrew text then in their possession 
did not come down from the original autographs pure and un¬ 
changed. They were not in the original autographs at all. 


i of C.. 


100 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

Levita, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, and the great array 
of Biblical critics in the 16th and 17th centuries had set¬ 
tled that. They knew, as well as we know, that there were 
variations of reading and uncertainties and errors in the Gfeek 
and Hebrew texts in their hands. The great Polyglots had 
settled that. They knew that there were errors of citation and 
of chronology and of geographical statement in the text of 
Scripture. Luther and Calvin, Walton and Lightfoot, Baxter 
and Rutherford, and a great company of Biblical scholars 
recognized them and found no difficulty with them. 

The language of the Confession does not of itself teach that 
the Holy Scriptures are altogether without error; and it is 
extremely improbable, from the historic situation of the West¬ 
minster divines in the development of Biblical scholarship, that 
they ever designed to make any such statement. But even if 
they had intended to make such a statement, and did actually 
make it, implicitly, if not explicitly, in the clause, “kept pure 
in all ages,” it is the unanimous testimony of modern Biblical 
scholarship that there are errors in the Hebrew and Greek texts 
now in our hands, errors that meet us in textual criticism, in 
literary criticism, and in historical criticism, that no one has 
been able to deny or to explain away. Modern Biblical scholar¬ 
ship has forced the advocates of inerrancy to fall back from the 
texts in our hands and grant that there are errors in them, in 
order to rally about the modern dogma of the inerrancy of the 
original autographs. 

The attentive reader of the Westminster Confession will note 
that it states with regard to the original texts that (1) “ The 
Old Testament in Hebrew and the Hew Testament in Greek 
are immediately inspired by God,” and (2) that they, “by his 
singular care and providence, have been kept pure in all ages.” 
The first statement, that the original texts are immediately in¬ 
spired by God, is not in debate in the Presbyterian Church. 
All parties agree to that. The second statement affirms noth¬ 
ing more as regards the original autographs than it affirms of 
the Hebrew and Greek texts in our hands. “ Kept pure” means 
that the text we have is as pure as the original text was, no 
more, no less. Those modern scholastics who have generated 
this dogma of the inerrancy of the original autographs seem 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


101 


altogether unconscious of the fact that they have transgressed 
the Confessional statement, when they claim that the original 
autographs were so pure as to be inerrant, and then admit that 
they have not been kept sufficiently pure in all ages as to be in¬ 
errant at the present time. The Confessional doctrine is “ kept 
pure in all ages.” This we firmly believe. The texts are as 
pure to-day to determine religious controversies as they ever 
were. They are as pure, as the only infallible rule of faith and 
practice, as when they first issued by immediate inspiration 
from the hands and the brains of those who wrote them and 
uttered them. Our opponents deny the Confessional statement 
when they assert that the original autographs were purer than 
the Biblical texts are now. They deny the Confession which 
states that they have been “ kept pure in all ages.” They make 
the synagogue and the Church the scapegoats, and throw upon 
them the blame for the errors in the present texts of Scripture. 
Doubtless many errors have arisen in the course of transmission 
through the mistakes of copyists. But these may, for the most 
part, be traced out and explained according to the principles of 
textual criticism. These errors are chiefly errors of inadvert¬ 
ence, although some have arisen from dogmatic efforts to har¬ 
monize variant passages and to correct supposed errors in the 
older texts. It discredits the scientific work of textual criticism 
to make conjectures as to an original text different from the 
best one we can find after we have exhausted the resources of 
criticism. Conjectures in the interests of scepticism are quite 
as easy as conjectures in the interest of orthodoxy. Those who 
by pure conjecture invent an inerrant original autograph, that 
has never been in the possession of the synagogue or the Church 
so far as we can trace the historic records, deny that God has 
kept the Holy Scripture pure in that period of their history con¬ 
cerning which we are left in darkness. It is quite easy to 
imagine anything in the dark. 

“ The Confession does not present any obstacle whatever to 
Biblical scholarship at this point. The Confession says: c kept 
pure in all ages. 5 This is in accord with Biblical scholarship. 
It is well known to those who have pursued the study of Bibli¬ 
cal criticism that textual criticism, while it advances steadily 
toward the original autographs, finds the number of errors 


102 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


increasing as well as diminishing. As it works its arduous 
way backward some errors are removed, but others of equal 
difficulty are disclosed. The Higher Criticism in its quest after 
the exact literary forms of the original Scriptures also finds an 
increasing number of errors. Historical criticism in its com¬ 
parison of Bible with monument and the parallel line of history 
clears up many difficulties, but also adds to the number of errors 
of names, dates, geography, and incident. Biblical scholarship 
could have no objection to the statement of the Westminster 
Confession “kept pure in all ages,” for criticism shows that the 
present text is as pure and free from errors of truth and fact as 
any earlier text accessible to us. Indeed, the study of the errors 
of Holy Scripture is one of the strongest evidences of the credi¬ 
bility of the Scriptures. It shows clearly that the text has in 
all ages been kept pure for its purposes of grace and salvation. 
All the errors that have yet been discovered are but as moles 
on a beautiful face, or those discolorations of a cathedral which 
come in part from the wear and tear of ages and in part from 
minor defects in the marbles themselves, but which enhance the 
beauty and majesty of the structure, witnessing to its integ¬ 
rity, strength, and grandeur.” (See “ The Bible, the Church, 
and the Reason,” pp. 99 seq.) 

(3) Another neglected clause of the Confession reads as follows: 

“ Therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every 
nation unto which they come, that the word of God dwelling plentifully 
in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through 
patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope ” (I. 8). 

This passage was omitted altogether from the Specification in 
the original Charge. The prosecution doubtless saw their mis¬ 
take in this omission and had a presentiment that it would be 
used against them. 

This passage teaches the efficacy of translations of the Scrip¬ 
tures and maintains that the Word of God comes through 
translations as well as through originals. The authority of 
Holy Scripture is not confined to the original autographs or to 
the original languages of Holy Scripture, but is conveyed by 
the holy doctrine and facts of Scripture through every language 
under heaven. Holy Scripture is the power of God unto salva- 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


103 


tion in whatever form it assumes or through whatever message 
it comes to penitent men of every nation, kindred, or tongue. 
There can be no true doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Scrip¬ 
ture, or of the authority of Holy Scripture, or of the infallibility 
of Holy Scripture, which deifies original autographs, exaggerates 
Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic words and sentences, and depre¬ 
ciates the translations which alone are accessible to the people of 
God. When it is said that “ God is careful of his yodh. He does 
not dot his i for nothing, nor cross his t merely for decoration” 
(Stenographical Report, pp. 566, 567), the prosecution use lan¬ 
guage which is so anthropomorphic as to be irreverent. When 
it is further said that the Bible is “ the human medium which 
tabernacles Jesus Christ, the Word made Bible must be as per¬ 
fect, as spotless, as infallible” (Stenographical Report, p. 515), 
the prosecution teach a Christology which is contrary to the faith 
of the Church of God. The Bible is not Jesus Christ in the 
form of a book. The Bible is not God manifest in the Scrip¬ 
tures in a sense parallel to God manifest in the flesh of Jesus 
Christ. The authority of the Bible and its infallibility is of a 
very different kind from the authority of the Incarnate Son 
of God. Its authority is in the divine revelation of the rule of 
faith and life for the redemption of men. The Bible is authori¬ 
tative to the people of God, not merely to those who can read 
it in Hebrew and Greek. The Bible is infallible to all the 
ministry, not merely to those who can spell out by the help of 
a dictionary its Greek and Hebrew words, ^lie Bible is suffi¬ 
cient for the whole Church, not merely for a few textual critics. 
It is important that there should be the best textual criticism 
and that the ministry should in considerable numbers be He¬ 
brew and Greek scholars. But it is contrary to the principles 
of Protestantism and especially of Puritanism that any doctrine 
of the Bible should be taught that makes it necessary for us to 
resort to the original texts and the original autographs in order 
to get at the fountain of inspiration and authority. It is a 
ludicrous feature of the present situation that Biblical scholars 
are defending the translations of which they have no need, 
and experts in textual criticism are acknowledging that they 
find no inerrant manuscripts, the Higher Critics are searching 
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures through and through to learn 


104 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


the exact truth and facts about the origin and character of the 
Bible; while men who can hardly spell out their Hebrew and 
Greek Bibles, who are as innocent of textual criticism as a 
child unborn, and who show by their speech and writing that 
they know not the meaning of the words Higher Criticism— 
that such men are prating about the infallibility of original 
autographs and the inviolability of traditional theories. We 
may safely say that divine authority is not stereotyped in 
original autographs so hidden from the eyes of men that they 
can less easily be discovered than the north pole or the Garden 
of Eden. The fountain of authority is in the great heart of the 
gospel, the message of redemption which the Bible tells in every 
language into which it may be translated, and which the Holy 
Spirit ever accompanies with His quickening presence. 

A study of the Confession makes it clear that it knows noth¬ 
ing of the modern doctrine of the inerrancy of the original auto¬ 
graphs of Holy Scripture. When the General Assembly as¬ 
sumed to say by a majority vote that “ Our Church holds that 
the inspired Word as it came from God is without error,” they 
said what is not true in fact at the present time unless their 
own majority vote determines what our Church holds; and they 
said what has never been true in fact in the history of the 
Presbyterian Church, if they meant, what circumstances seem 
to indicate that they meant, to affirm that the original auto¬ 
graphs were without error. 

The Witness of Holy Scripture as to Errors 

All the texts cited by the prosecution against the passages 
from my Inaugural are irrelevant. If they had affirmed in 
their Charge that it is an essential and necessary article of the 
Confession and of Holy Scripture that the original autographs 
of Holy Scripture are inerrant and had used these passages as 
proofs, it would have been easy to show that not one of them 
gives the slightest support to such a theory. They show that 
they have no confidence in the proof texts of their own selec¬ 
tion. In the specification of the original Charge of which the 
present Charge is an amplification, the prosecution cite twenty- 
seven texts of Scripture against me. They have thrown out all 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


105 


but three of them from the present Charge and have added four 
new ones. But the new are no better than the old. Another 
year’s reflection would probably suffice to have all of them thrown 
out. Under these circumstances it seems not worth my while 
to pay any attention to them. I hold to all that these texts 
teach when interpreted by sound principles of exegesis. But I 
am sure that no Biblical scholar who is entitled to the slightest 
consideration or respect would risk his reputation by citing any 
of the texts for any such purpose as the prosecution have in 
mind. 

I shall adhere to the policy which I have thus far followed 
with regard to errors in Holy Scripture. I have refused to accept 
the dogma that the original autographs were inerrant. I have 
maintained that there are errors in the texts which we have 
and in the best texts we can get by the science of textual criti¬ 
cism, and that it is improbable that the original texts, if we 
could discover them, would be much different from those we 
have in that regard. But I have refused to affirm that there 
were errors in the original autographs; because it is unscien¬ 
tific and it is un scholarly and it is against the truth-loving 
spirit of Christianity to make affirmations of dogma where we 
have no certain evidence. I have always refrained as far as 
possible from pointing to errors in the present text of Scripture. 
But every Biblical scholar admits them. There are a few pro¬ 
fessors in the Biblical department in American theological 
seminaries who hold to this modern dogma of inerrancy, and 
in the interests of this dogma try to explain away the errors of 
Holy Scripture, but even these Procrusteans are obliged to 
admit that they must resort, for some of the most stubborn of 
them, to conjectures that these were bastards to the original 
text. 

I shall call your attention to some errors in Holy Scripture 
which have been recognized by the great divines of the Church 
and which are acknowledged by the best Biblical scholarship of 
our age, in order that you may see how unsafe it is to risk the 
divine authority of Holy Scripture on the soundness of such an 
unhistoric and unstable modern dogma as inerrancy. I refer 
you again to the long list of citations in my “ Bible, Church, and 
Keason,” proving that errors in Holy Scripture were recognized 


106 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

by Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Baxter, Ruther¬ 
ford, Van Oosterzee, among the older divines; and among those 
now living, by Marcus Dods, Sanday, Bruce, Beet, Charteris, 
Plummer, Gore, Cave, Iverach, Thayer, Huntington, Apple, 
Fisher, Vincent, and Fairchild. Citations from ten times as 
many might easily be produced. In the presence of such 
authorities, even members of the late General Assembly might 
well feel a sense of humiliation and shame for their deliverance, 
which advises all who agree with these divines to retire from 
the Church. Such divines bear the Church with them wherever 
they go. A Church from which such divines would retire 
would go a long distance in the direction indicated by the Con¬ 
fession when it represents that some churches “ have so degen¬ 
erated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of 
Satan.” 

(a) Calvin says with reference to Matthew xxvii. 9 : 

“ How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess I know not nor am I 
seriously troubled about it. That the name of Jeremiah has been put 
for Zechariah by an error, the fact itself shows, because there is no such 
statement in Jeremiah.” 

St. Augustine and St. Jerome had recognized this error cen¬ 
turies before. Professor Sanday, the most eminent scholar in 
the New Testament in Great Britain, now living, regards this 
as an erroneous citation. New Testament scholars who differ 
from them are hard to find. Possibly these may all be mistaken 
in their opinion, and American dogmaticians may succeed in 
convincing you that this is no error, or at least that it was not 
an error in the original text. But what will you do with these 
scholars and all whom you cannot convince? Are you prepared 
to say that they must retire from the Presbyterian Church? 

(b) Calvin recognizes a mistake in Hebrews xi. 21. He says: 

“ No doubt Moses spoke of the head of his couch, when he said by 

but the Greek translators rendered the words, ‘on the top of his staff, ’ as 
though the last word was written n pi 1 . The Apostle hesitated not to ap¬ 
ply to his purpose what w T as commonly received: he was indeed writing 
to the Jews; but they who were dispersed in various countries had 
changed their own language for the Greek. And we know that the 
Apostles were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate 
themselves to the unlearned, who had as yet need of milk” (Calvin’s 
Commentary on Hebrews, xi. 21). 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


107 


You may see the difference in our English Bible: 

“ And he said, Swear unto me: and he sware unto him. And Israel 
bowed liimself upon the bed’s head” (Gen. xlvii. 31). 

“By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed each of the sons of 
Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff ” (Hebrews 
xi. 21). 

The LXX. version mistakes the points of the Hebrew word 
and renders incorrectly. This error appears in the epistle to 
the Hebrews. There is no doubt that it is an error. It is hard 
to see how you can remove this error from the original text of 
the Xew Testament, because the LXX. version is back of it. 
But what matters such an error as this? What difference does 
it make to our faith and practice whether Jacob leaned on his 
staff or his bed’s head? Why should you demand that the 
Holy Spirit must have so overruled the mind of the writer of 
the epistle to the Hebrews that he would correct his citation 
from the LXX. so as to correspond with the correct Hebrew 
text? If by any strange device you can persuade yourselves that 
this is not an error after all, what are you going to do with the 
man who thinks with John Calvin and whom you cannot con¬ 
vince? Will you exclude him from the Church because he 
finds bed’s head in the Old Testament inconsistent with staff 
in the Xew Testament? 

(c) The epistle to the Galatians contains a serious chronologi¬ 
cal error, according to the opinion of most scholars: 

“ Now this I say : A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, 
which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so 
as to make the promise of none effect ” (Galatians iii. 17). 

This four hundred and thirty years from the promise to 
Abraham until the law-giving is in accordance with the four 
hundred years of the prediction in Genesis xv. 13 and Acts vii. 
6; but it is contrary to the narrative Ex. xii. 40, which gives 
the sojourn in Egypt as four hundred and thirty years. How¬ 
ever, the LXX. version by an insertion in the text overcomes 
the difficulty; but this text is not accepted by the best criticism. 
This difference of chronology involves an error either on the 
one side or the other. Dillmann shows that the genealogical 


108 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


tables are also widely discrepant in the number of generations 
during the period from the descent into Egypt till the law-giv¬ 
ing. The general opinion is that the number 430 is correct and 
that Stephen and Paul are in error. 

Professor Beet, of the Wesleyan Church in England, says: 

“About trifling discrepancies between the Hebrew and Greek texts, 
Paul probably neither knew nor cared. And they have no bearing what¬ 
ever upon the all-important matter he has here in hand. He adopted 
the chronology of the LXX., with which alone his readers were familiar ; 
knowing, possibly, that if incorrect it was only an understatement of 
the case ” (Commentary on Galatians, p. 90). 

Dr. Schaff says: 

“ But this difference in the chronology of the Greek Bible and our pres¬ 
ent Hebrew text, although very serious in a historical point of view, is 
of no account for the argument in hand. Paul means to say, the older 
an agreement, the stronger its authority. The Hebrew text would 
strengthen the argument ” (Commentary on Galatians, in loco). 

I shall not discuss this difficult question. But I ask you to 
consider whether you are going to make the divine authority 
of Holy Scripture depend upon the removal of this error from 
the text. And will you discipline all those who think that 
you cannot make the four hundred and thirty years of the 
sojourn in Egypt harmonize with the four hundred and 
thirty years from Abraham to the Exodus? 

( d ) It is the common opinion that Stephen makes an erro¬ 
neous statement in Acts vii. 16, where he says: 

“And they were carried over unto Shechem, and laid in the tomb that 
Abraham bought for a piece in silver of the sons of Hamor in Shechem. ” 

The late Professor Lechler says: 

“Stephen says that the remains of Jacob and also of his sons were 
carried to Sychem; his language has occasioned here, too, perplexity 
with respect to several particulars. 1. We are told in Genesis i. 13 
that Joseph and his brethren buried the body of Jacob in the cave of the 
field near Hebron, whereas Stephen says that Jacob was buried in Sychem. 
2. According to Josh. xxiv. 32, the Israelites, when they took possession 
of Canaan, buried the bones of Joseph, which they brought from Egypt, 
in Shechem (Sychem) ; but it is not stated in this passage or elsewhere 
in the Old Testament that the bones of Joseph’s brethren, whom the terms 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


109 


employed by Stephen include, were buried at the same place. 3. Stephen 
says that Abraham bought the piece of ground in Sychem, of the sons of 
Emmor. Yet it was not Abraham, but Jacob, who bought this piece of 
ground of the former owners (Gen. xxxiii. 18, 19). Consequently, Stephen 
confounded the latter with the spot near Hebron, which Abraham had 
bought. Every possible attempt has been made to explain these varia¬ 
tions, from the period in which the oldest manuscripts were written 
down to the age of the reformers, and thence to the present day. In¬ 
terpreters have, without success, availed themselves of every resource 
which the laws of Criticism or of Grammar, or the principles of Lexi¬ 
cology, or of Hermeneutics seemed to offer. The theory has been pro¬ 
posed that two burials are described in terms which were intentionally 
abbreviated, or that the passage before us speaks of two purchases. It is, 
however, the most judicious course to admit frankly, that, with refer¬ 
ence to the purchase of the ground and the burial of Jacob, it might 
easily occur that Stephen, whose discourse treated an entirely different 
and a loftier theme, should, in his rapid course, confound two analogous 
transactions. As to the burial of Joseph’s brethren in Canaan, the Old 
Testament presents no conflicting statements, but merely observes si¬ 
lence ; it is very probable that such a tradition, the existence of which at a 
later period can be proved, was already current in Stephen’s age, and 
adopted by him ” (Lechler, “ Acts, ” p. 116). 

Calvin also recognizes this error of Stephen: 

“It is evident that he [Stephen] made a mistake in the name of Abra¬ 
ham, since Abraham bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite, for the 
interment of his wife: but Joseph was buried elsewhere, viz., in the 
field which his father Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor for an hundred 
lambs. Wherefore this passage is to be corrected” (p. 110). 

The late Professor Evans in holy indignation exclaims: 

“If Stephen transposes certain Old Testament incidents, or confuses 
certain names, does that affect the convicting power of his terrific ar¬ 
raignment of an apostate Israel? Was not the power of the Holy Ghost 
in every word that he spoke, even when least accurate? Suppose that 
one of his hearers had undertaken to reply to him, saying: ‘You have 
said that Abraham left Haran after the death of his father Terah ; where¬ 
as, if you study the figures in Genesis, you will find that Terah must 
have lived fifty years or more in Haran after Abraham left. You were 
mistaken, also, in saying that Abraham bought the sepulchre of the sons 
of Hamor in Shechem. If you look into the matter a little more closely 
you will find that that was Jacob, and that Abraham bought his purchase 
at Hebron of Ephron the Hittite. ’ But would that have silenced Stephen? 
Such a criticism on such a speech would have been like flinging a feather 
in the teeth of a cyclone” (“ Inspiration and Inerrancy, ” pp. 165-167). 


110 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


Possibly you may see your way through this error, but 
scholars greater and wiser than you cannot. You may be 
ready to follow the opinion of an American divine: 

“In all such cases, it is necessary to consider the difficulties which at¬ 
tend the supposition of mistake or contradiction, as well as that of truth 
and consistency, especially as sceptical critics and their Christian fol¬ 
lowers are accustomed to look only at one side of the question. In this 
case, for example, it is easy to cut the knot by assuming a mistake on 
Stephen’s part, but not so easy to account for its being made by such a 
man, addressing such an audience, and then perpetuated in such a his¬ 
tory, without correction or exposure, for a course of ages” (Alexander 
on Acts, p. 269). 

Is this argumentation to be made a test of orthodoxy ? Have 
you no pity for Calvin and Lechler and Evans? Are all who 
see as they do to be cast out of the Presbyterian Church and 
given over to Satan? 

(e) Let me give you the statement of another American 
professor: 

“ The greatest reliance is, however, placed on the third case adduced— 
the statement of Luke that Jesus was born at the time of a world enrol¬ 
ment, which was carried out in Syria during the governorship of Cyre- 
nius. Weiss offers three reasons why Luke is certainly incorrect here, 
which Schurer increases to five facts, viz. : 1. History knows nothing of 
a general empire census in the time of Augustus. 2. A Roman census 
would not force Joseph to go to Bethlehem nor Mary to go with him. 
3. Nor could it have taken place in Palestine in the time of Herod. 4. 
Josephus knows nothing of such a census, but, on the contrary, speaks 
of that of Acts v. 37 as something new and unheard of; and, 5, Quiri- 
nius was not governor of Syria during Herod’s life. This has a formid¬ 
able look ; but each detail has been more than fully met” (“Presbyterian 
Review,” p. 248). 

Professor Weiss and Professor Schurer are of the highest 
rank in the study of the Hew Testament. There is no Ameri¬ 
can scholar now living, unless it be Professor Thayer, who 
could claim equal recognition by the Christian world. You 
may be convinced by the reasoning given above, but what 
are you going to say with regard to the multitudes of Chris¬ 
tian scholars who are not convinced? The greatest Hew Testa¬ 
ment scholars in the world, seeking only what is true and right, 
and without prejudice, find error here, and they are entitled to 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


111 


our respect and confidence. But the author of this reasoning 
does not win our confidence in his fairness, for he bandages his 
eyes at the very beginning of such an investigation by winding 
about them a rag with the inscription, “ A proved error in 
Scripture contradicts not only our doctrines, but the Scripture’s 
claims and therefore its inspiration in making those claims.” 

(/) This same anti-revisionist makes the following statement, 
which possibly may convince some of you: 

“ Dr. Fisher most wisely rests his charge against the complete harmony 
of the four evangelists, viz. : the alleged disharmony in the accounts of 
the place and phraseology of the sermon on the mount, the healing of the 
centurion’s son, the denials of Peter, the healing of the blind man, at 
Jericho, and the time of the institution of the Lord’s supper. But that 
in each of these, most natural means of harmonizing exist, are even in 
some instances recognized as possible by Dr. Fisher himself, President 
Bartlett has lately so fully shown in detail that we cannot bring ourselves 
to repeat the oft-told tale here” (“Presbyterian Review,” II., p. 252). 

Prof. George P. Fisher is an authority than whom there is no 
greater in America in questions of New Testament history. 
If he finds lack of harmony in these four instances in the gos¬ 
pels, most persons will conclude that there must be valid reasons 
for his opinion. But Prof. Fisher does not stand alone. He 
is sustained by New Testament scholars the world over. It is 
possible that this advocate of inerrancy may have the right of 
it, and that all these scholars may be wrong. You may think 
that you may safely follow him and rely on his authority rather 
than on the others. But can you do this as jurors? Can you 
in the divine presence, in view of the facts adduced, undertake 
to affirm it as the truth of God, as an essential and necessary 
article of faith, that these and other like cases are not errors? 
You may be able to persuade yourselves to it as an act of 
allegiance to your party in the Church, but if you do it as 
jurors you forfeit your Christian integrity and honesty of soul; 
for it is as certain as the sun shines that the great majority of 
this Presbytery do not and cannot know the certainty of all 
these things by their own study and knowledge. 

(g) In the book of Genesis there are two stories respecting 
the wives of the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac, which are so 
similar that it is commonly supposed that they are two differ- 


112 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


ent stories of the same thing. This opinion is strengthened by 
the fact that the one of them (Gen. xx.) is in the Ephraimitic 
document, the other (Gen. xxvi.) in the Judaic document. 
There is indeed a third similar story where the scene is laid in 
Egypt according to Gen. xii. Delitzsch calls attention to the 
fact that Sarah, according to the context in which Gen. xx. 
stands, must have been ninety years of age when Abimelek took 
her from her husband to be his concubine. 

The late Prof. Delitzsch, who was recognized as a man of deep 
personal piety and of missionary zeal, as well as a great Old 
Testament scholar, gives it as his opinion that the editor of the 
Hexateuch took Genesis xx. from the Ephraimitic document 
and put it in the narrative out of its historical position, very 
much as he thinks that the synoptists put the account of the 
purification of the temple by Jesus at the end of His ministry in 
connection with His third passover, whereas it belongs accord¬ 
ing to the gospel of John at His first passover. Delitzsch ex¬ 
plains these three stories as three different traditions which the 
editor used, and that he is entitled to our thanks for having 
given the three faithfully and for not suppressing any of them 
in favor of the others. These views of Delitzsch, sustained by 
Old Testament scholars in general, may seem to you difficult 
to reconcile with the divine inspiration of these passages. But 
Delitzsch and other scholars find no such difficulty. Have you 
ever thought of it? The difficulty is in the dogma of inspira¬ 
tion in which you have been trained. It is not in the Bible 
itself. Think of it for a moment. Here is a man inspired 
by God to gather the ancient traditions of his nation into an 
historical writing that will trace the unfolding of redemption 
among the patriarchs. He does not receive these stories by 
divine revelation. Ho scholar thinks of such a thing. He 
finds these stories in earlier documents and uses them. He 
was doubtless guided by the divine Spirit in their use, he was 
guided in his purpose of selecting such stories as would set 
forth the divine grace and the progress of redemption; but 
was it necessary that the divine Spirit should enable him to 
decide between two or three ancient stories of similar character? 
Was it essential to the purpose of an holy writing that he should 
decide whether these were three events, or variant traditions 


THE INERRANCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


113 


of two events, or of one event? Would the Holy Spirit guide 
him so as to decide as to the locality, whether it happened in 
Philistia or in Egypt; as to whether it was the wife of Abra¬ 
ham or the wife of Isaac; and as to what exact time in the life 
of either of them the event occurred? Hone of these things 
were at all necessary to the purposes of grace. The lesson of 
the story is just as good with Abraham as with Isaac, with 
Pharaoh as with Abimelek. It is all the better if it can be 
shown that we have three stories of the same event, as we have 
three stories in the gospels of the purification of the temple. 

Prof. Henry P. Smith calls attention to an inconsistency 
between the books of Kings and Chronicles: 

(h) “ But the high places were not taken away : nevertheless the heart of 
Asa was perfect with the Lord all his days ” (I. Kings xv. 14). 

“ And Asa did that which was good and right in the eyes of the Lord 
his God: for he took away the strange altars, and the high places, and 
brake down the pillars and hewed down the Asherim; and commanded 
Judah to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, and to do the law and 
the commandment. Also he took away out of all the cities of Judah the 
high places and the sun images: and the kingdom was quiet before 
them ” (II. Chron. xiv. 2-5). 

A similar conflict is found between I. Kings xxii. 43 and 
II. Chron. xvii. 16: 

“ And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not 
aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: how- 
beit the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and 
burnt incense in the high places.” 

“And his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Lord : and furthermore 
he took away the high places and the Asherim out of Judah. ” 

This conflict might be removed by conjectural textual criti¬ 
cism as I have elsewhere suggested; but such criticism was not 
proposed by the Revised Version of the Old Testament; and it 
is opposed by the fact that these differences are in accord with 
many others and they seem to reflect different points of view 
of the compilers and writers. As they stand in the translations 
and in the original texts, they are flat contradictions, and either 
the one writer or the other must be in error. If any of you 
can avoid the opinion that these are errors, you are entitled to 
your opinion. We have no desire to compel you to say that 
8 


114 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


these or any others are errors. But have you any right to force 
your opinions upon us? We cannot shut our eyes to contradic¬ 
tions. We cannot throw aside the laws of thought. We pre¬ 
fer rather to see the truth than by majority votes be counted 
among the orthodox. We shall be true to the divine laws of 
reasoning even if that reasoning convicts the last General As¬ 
sembly of error. 

The number of such instances as I have given above might 
be increased to an indefinite extent, extending over a large part 
of the Old Testament and the New Testament. We are all 
reluctant to acknowledge errors in Holy Scripture. We 
acknowledge them only when we are compelled so to do by 
evidence that cannot honestly be gainsaid. But we refuse to 
accept the modern dogma of inerrancy. In no creed of Christen¬ 
dom is it taught. It has never received the official stamp of 
any Church unless you suppose that the last General Assembly 
used such a stamp in its deliverance last May. If the Presby¬ 
terian Church should be induced, either by a revision of the 
Confession or by a decision in a judicial case, to make such a 
dogma the official doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, our 
Church would be cut off from historic Christendom, and become 
a mere sect, bearing no longer the historical name of Calvinism, 
for they would thereby declare Calvin a heretic; no more the 
historical name of Presbyterian, because they would thereby 
separate from Westminster Presbyterianism and the Presby¬ 
terian Churches of the rest of the world. They might take the 
name of an old sect and call themselves Scripturalists—but they 
would insensibly become by a necessary process of degradation 
mere Bibliolaters. 

You are now to determine in the fear of God whether I am 
guilty of this Charge or not. I have shown you that I sub¬ 
scribe to all the statements of the Confession and of Holy Scrip¬ 
ture in the passages cited to sustain the Charge. I have shown 
you that there is no inconsistency between the doctrine that 
there are errors in the Scriptures as I explain them and the 
statements of Confession and Scripture. You cannot convict 
me on the ground of Confession or Scripture. You can only 
convict me on the ground of a deliverance of the Assembly at 
Portland, or of some dogmatic theory in your minds. If you 


THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


115 


should do this you will violate the constitution of the Presby¬ 
terian Church, break faith with me, and sear your own con¬ 
sciences before God. 


YI 

THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 

Charge IV. reads as follows: 

“ The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
charges the Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister of 
the said Church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, 
with teaching that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, 
which is contrary to direct statements of Holy Scripture and to 
the essential doctrines of the Standards of the said Church, 
that the Holy Scripture evidences itself to be the word of God 
by the consent of all the parts, and that the infallible rule of 
interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” 

It is evident to any one who takes the pains to compare the 
Charge with Specification 6th of the first Charge in the original 
Charges and Specifications, that the prosecution have changed 
their base. The prosecution originally proposed to prove that 
Dr. Briggs’ assertion, “that Moses is not the author of the 
Pentateuch,” was a fact which sustained the Charge that he 
taught “doctrines which conflict irreconcilably with and are 
contrary to the cardinal doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures 
and contained in the Standards of the Presbyterian Church, 
that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only 
infallible rule of faith and practice. ” This charge they have 
abandoned and propose to prove that the “teaching that Moses 
is not the author of the Pentateuch” is “ contrary to direct state¬ 
ments of Holy Scripture and to the essential doctrines of the 
Standards of the Presbyterian Church. (1) ‘That the Holy 
Scripture evidences itself ’ to be 4 the word of God ’ ‘ by the 
consent of all the parts, ’ and (2) that ‘ the infallible rule of in¬ 
terpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. ’ ” Here are two 
charges which you have decided to try together, but to vote 
upon separately. 



116 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


Let me call attention to two principles established at an 
earlier stage in my argument. 

(1) It is not sufficient to point to direct statements of Holy 
Scripture, unless the Church has already defined that these 
statements are direct, or it is agreed by the parties that they 
are direct. I shall show you later on that there are no such 
direct statements of Holy Scripture. But even if I should fail 
in such proof, it is plain that the Church has not defined these 
so-called direct statements of Holy Scripture in the Westminster 
Standards, and therefore it is not lawful to use them as evi¬ 
dence of an essential and necessary article of the Confession of 
Faith. 

(2) It is not sufficient for the prosecution to claim that a doc¬ 
trine is an essential doctrine of the Westminster Standards. 
They may claim anything and everything. It is necessary 
for them to prove their claim. The court have doubtless no¬ 
ticed that the prosecution have made no attempt in their argu¬ 
ment to present such proof. They have made no use of these 
passages of our Confession whatever. On this account I ask 
that you rule Charges IY. and Y. out of court as entirely desti¬ 
tute of proof. But I shall find it convenient to use these pas¬ 
sages of the Confession myself and turn them against the prose¬ 
cutors. I admit that two doctrines of our Standards are “ that 
the Holy Scripture evidences itself to be the word of God by the 
consent of all the parts ” and “ the infallible rule of interpreta¬ 
tion of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” But I deny that the 
clause “ consent of all the parts ” is an essential doctrine. I am 
glad, however, that the question has been raised at this very 
point, because upon its solution will depend a question of con¬ 
science which is likely to emerge ere long for many Presbyterian 
ministers. 

The internal evidences given in Section Y., Chapter I., to 
prove that Holy Scripture is the word of God are: (1) heavenli- 
ness of the matter; (2) efficacy of the doctrine; (3) majesty of 
the style; (4) consent of all the parts; (5) the scope of the 
whole (which is to give all glory to God); (6) the full discovery 
it makes of the only way of man’s salvation; (7) the many 
other incomparable excellences; (8) and the entire perfection 
thereof. 


THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 117 

The questions which arise are: (1) Are all of these eight evi¬ 
dences essential doctrines of the Westminster Confession? (2) 
If not, is there any especial reason why “ consent of all the parts” 
should be deemed essential rather than other evidences? (3) 
If any or all of the evidences are essential doctrines of our 
Standards, will the new evidences which are proposed by over¬ 
ture from the General Assembly as additions to these evidences 
and indeed as the first and second in the order, namely, (1) “ the 
truthfulness of the history and (2) the faithful witness of proph¬ 
ecy and miracle, ” be essential doctrines of our Standards? 
Let us consider the latter question first. 

If this revision should be adopted by a vote of two-thirds of 
the Presbyteries, such a vote would determine that these evi¬ 
dences are regarded by the Church as of sufficient importance 
to assert them at the beginning of the catalogue. If then any 
of the eight evidences are regarded as essential, these two new 
evidences could claim to be essential on the ground that the 
Presbyterian Church by a decisive vote had added them to the 
eight. If this should be so, those of us who cannot agree to 
these two new evidences would be compelled to retire from the 
Presbyterian Church, because we cannot subscribe to them. 
This is probably the underlying motive in those who have ad¬ 
vocated this revision. They desire to use them as a purge to 
the Presbyterian Church. If therefore you recognize that the 
clause “ consent of all the parts ” is an essential article of the 
Confession, we shall be obliged to conclude that the proposed 
additions to the first chapter will also become essential articles, 
if adopted. In that case I suggest that the simplest way in 
which the Higher Critics can be purged from the Church is 
by the adoption of this revision, and by the decision of the 
supreme court of the Church of this simple question, whether 
“ consent of all the parts ” is an essential article of our Confes¬ 
sion. Let no one misunderstand me. I agree to the proposi¬ 
tion that u the consent of all the parts ” of Holy Scripture is a 
fact attested by a scientific study of the Bible. I also agree 
that this fact and the other facts adduced in the Confession are 
evidences that Scripture is the word of God. I also agree to 
the fact of “ the truthfulness of the history ” and “ the faithful 
witness of prophecy and miracle; ” but I do not and I cannot 


118 


TI-IE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


agree that these latter are internal evidences that the Scripture 
is the word of God. It is not the facts that are in question. 
It is whether these facts are valid evidences for Holy Scripture. 
I maintain that if the “ consent of all the parts ” be an essential 
article of faith as an evidence that the Scripture is the word of 
God, then it will be claimed, if the revision succeed, that “ the 
truthfulness of the history and the faithful witness of prophecy 
and miracle ” are essential articles as evidences that the Scrip¬ 
ture is the word of God; and all who cannot subscribe to these 
evidences will be obliged to retire from the Presbyterian Church. 

The second question is easily answered according to the 
principles already laid down, (a) There is no special reason 
why “consent of all the parts” should be regarded as more 
essential than any of the other evidences, e.g. “ heavenliness of 
the matter, efficacy of the doctrine, the scope of the whole, the 
full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, and 
the entire perfection thereof.” ( b ) There is no passage of Holy 
Scripture given in the Westminster Confession or cited by the 
prosecution in support of this phrase, “consent of all the parts,” 
and therefore it cannot be regarded as essential, (c) It might 
be removed from the Confession without destroying the argu¬ 
ment from internal evidence. It is not essential to the argu¬ 
ment. It is not used in all of the Puritan arguments from the 
internal evidence. It is one of many evidences which may or 
may not be stated as occasion requires, (d) This evidence is’ 
not in the Shorter Catechism and therefore not essential. 

We have finally to answer the question whether all of these 
eight evidences are essential articles of faith as evidences. 

(a) We might easily show that the eight are not of equal 
validity as evidences. They must be ranged in order of weight 
of evidence. They are not an exhaustive list. They constitute 
a useful list in a chain of probable evidence. ( b ) Five of them 
are given in the Larger Catechism, but three are omitted. 
Hone of them are given in the Shorter Catechism, (c) We 
claim that none of them are essential because the Confession 
expressly gives them as probable evidence, sufficient “abun¬ 
dantly to evidence,” yet “notwithstanding our full persuasion 
and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority 
thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing 


THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


119 


witness by and with the word in our hearts.” This divine 
evidence is essential, this alone is essential, this alone is an 
essential article of faith in evidence of Holy Scripture. 

Therefore, the claim of the prosecution in their Charge, that 
it is an essential doctrine of the Standards of our Church, “ that 
the Holy Scripture evidences itself to be the word of God by 
the consent of all the parts,” cannot be maintained. You can¬ 
not recognize this claim wthout putting the Presbyterian 
Church in grave peril, especially in view of the proposed revis¬ 
ion of the first chapter of our Confession. 

If this court should still resist my arguments and hold that 
“ consent of all the parts” is an essential article of our creed, 
then let me say that although I deny that it is an essential doc¬ 
trine, I yet agree to the doctrine itself. But I fail to see in 
what respect the doctrine that Moses did not write the Penta¬ 
teuch contravenes the doctrine of the “ consent of all the parts” 
of Holy Scripture, or the doctrine that “ the infallible rule of 
interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” I am sure 
that I hold these three doctrines. It may be that the prosecu¬ 
tion can convince you that I am inconsistent in holding these 
doctrines. But they have not thus far ventured to make such an 
argument, and if they had done so they could not do away with 
the fact that I do hold these doctrines. You will then have 
to apply the law of the supreme court in the Craighead case 
that— 

“No man can rightly be convicted of heresy by inference or implica¬ 
tion ; that is, we must not charge an accused person with holding those 
consequences which may legitimately flow from his assertions. Many 
men are grossly inconsistent with themselves; and while it is right, in 
argument, to overthrow false opinions, by tracing them in their connec¬ 
tions and consequences, it is not right to charge any man with an opin¬ 
ion which he disavows ” (Craighead Case, Minutes of the General As¬ 
sembly, 1824, p. 122). 

You cannot convict me in the face of this decision of the 
General Assembly. 

But let us rise above these legal aspects of the case to the 
merits of the question. The Confession teaches that “ the infalli¬ 
ble rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” 
Accordingly we must resort to Holy Scripture for the infallible 


120 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


interpretation of the question whether Moses wrote the Pen¬ 
tateuch or not. To that we agree, and to that rule we shall re¬ 
sort so soon as preliminary questions can be settled. 

Granting that there is “ consent of all the parts” of Holy 
Scripture, it is our duty to determine what that consent is. 
This we shall use every effort to determine. But it is evident 
to the court at the outset that there is an irreconcilable differ¬ 
ence of opinion between the parties who propose to resort to the 
same tribunal and to seek the same guidance. They try to 
prove to you that Holy Scripture tells us that Moses wrote the 
Pentateuch. I, on the other hand, will present to you indubita¬ 
ble evidence that “ the consent of all the parts” of Holy Scripture, 
and the interpretation of Scripture which is given by Scripture 
itself, force the conclusion that Moses did not write the Penta¬ 
teuch. The argument is therefore reduced to the Scriptural 
argument. But we are confronted at the outset by the principle 
already established, that the Church has not officially deter¬ 
mined the interpretation of these passages of Holy Scripture, and 
that you cannot by a majority vote in the Presbytery decide 
which is the correct interpretation. The constitution of the 
Church forces you to decide by the interpretation of Scripture 
given in the Confession and to limit your decisions within the 
strict lines of its decisions. To depart from them and judge 
me by the interpretation of these passages of Scripture by a 
majority vote of the Presbytery will violate the constitution of 
the Church and all the precedents of ecclesiastical process. 

Before proceeding to the evidence from Holy Scripture, let 
me confront a preliminary dogmatic objection which is current 
in our Church. It seemed to me that it was the underlying 
motive in the mind of the prosecution in the original form of 
the Charge and its Specification, when they represented that the 
doctrine that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch “ con¬ 
flicts irreconcilably with and is contrary to the cardinal doc¬ 
trine taught in the Holy Scriptures and contained in the 
Standards of the Presbyterian Church, that the Scriptures of 
the Old and New Testaments are the only infallible rule of 
faith and practice.” 

I grant that there is a bridge by which it has been proposed 
to cross the chasm between these two statements, “ Moses is not 


THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


121 


the author of the Pentateuch ” and “ The Holy Scriptures are 
the only infallible rule of faith and practiceand that this is 
probably the bridge in the mind of a few members of this court, 
namely, that an infallible rule of faith and practice can onH 
come from well-known prophets and apostles. But this bridge 
is an airy structure which will not bear the strain that it is pro¬ 
posed to put upon it. It yields to the slightest touch of the 
breath of criticism and lets its users fall into a gulf of absurd¬ 
ities. And even if it were a sound logical bridge, it is not a 
Westminster bridge, or a Biblical bridge, and therefore no 
Presbyterian minister is bound to cross it. Let us test it be¬ 
fore we cross it. 

It is first necessary to show that no one but a well-known 
prophet can write a divine rule of faith and practice. It is 
next necessary to show that Moses is the only well-known 
prophet who could have written the Pentateuch. 

Irenseus says: “ God inspired Esdras the priest to recast all the 
words of the former prophets and to re-establish with the people 
the Mosaic legislation.” If Ezra can be shown to be responsible 
for our present Pentateuch, is he not as truly a well-known 
Biblical and inspired man and as capable of producing a rule of 
faith and practice as Moses? It is evident that even if the 
author of the Pentateuch must have been some well-known 
prophet, it does not follow that the divine authority of the Pen¬ 
tateuch stands or falls with the name of Moses. 

But is it true that an infallible rule of faith and practice 
can only come from these holy penmen whose names history 
has preserved for us? That is the view of an eminent divine 
and possibly the prosecution share it. This divine says: “ If, 
as one asserts, ‘the great mass of the Old Testament was written 
by authors whose names are lost in oblivion, ’ it was written by 
uninspired men.” . . . “This would be the inspiration of 
indefinite persons like Tom, Dick, and Harry, whom nobody 
knows, and not of definite historical persons like Moses and 
David, Matthew and John, chosen by God by name and known 
to men” (“Observer,” April 16, 1891). The author of these 
words may be able to convince you that his theory is the true 
theory. But what right have you under our constitution to 
impose this dogma upon me? It is not stated in the Confession 


122 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


of Faith. It is not given in Holy Scripture. Ho Christian 
Church has ever taught it. It is a doctrine of recent times. 
Modern dogmaticians invented it to use it in the establishment 
of their theory of the canon of Holy Scripture. They had 
abandoned the doctrine of the canon taught by the reformers 
and in the Westminster Confession, and they devised this 
erroneous doctrine in its place. As I stated some time ago : 

“ The Reformers found the essence of the authority of the Scriptures 
in the Scriptures themselves and not in traditional theories about them. 
Hence they were not anxious about human authorship. Luther denied the 
Apocalypse to John and Ecclesiastes to Solomon. He regarded Jude as an 
extract from Second Peter. He said : ‘ What matters it if Moses should not 
himself have written the Pentateuch?’ He thought that the epistle to the 
Hebrews was written by a disciple of the apostle Paul, who was a learned 
man, and made the epistle as a sort of composite piece in which there are 
some things hard to be reconciled with the gospel. Calvin denied the 
Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Hebrews, and doubted the Petrine 
authorship of Second Peter. He held that Ezra or some one else edited 
the Psalter. He regarded Malachi as a pseudonym for Ezra. The great 
Reformers found no difficulty in recognizing anonymous and pseudony¬ 
mous writings in the canon of Scripture” (“Whither? ” pp. 87, 88). 

Will you follow Calvin or Dr. Shedd, the Reformers or the 
Hodges, Westminster theology or Princeton theology? Look 
at the gulf into which these dogmaticians are leading the Pres¬ 
byterian Church ere you cross their bridge. 

Modern Biblical criticism has shattered the traditional theo¬ 
ries of the authorship of the Biblical books. Is it a safe posi¬ 
tion to risk the canonicity and divine authority of every one of 
these books upon your ability to convince yourselves and 
others that they were written by well-known apostles and 
prophets? Look at the facts of the case. (1) Who wrote the 
book of Job? What Biblical scholar at the present time would 
hazard his reputation on the statement that Moses wrote it? 
The school of Delitzsch put its composition in the age of Solo¬ 
mon, but the earliest date thought of in the present state of 
critical opinion is in the reign of Josiah. By common consent 
the writing is anonymous. Are we obliged to cast it out of the 
canon on that account? Listen to the wise words of Dr. A. B. 
Davidson, the prince of Old Testament scholars in Scotland, 
professor in a Presbyterian College in Edinburgh: 


THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


123 


“As to the author of the book we are in complete ignorance. He has 
been supposed to be Job himself, Elihu, Moses, Solomon, Heman the 
Ezrahite, author of Ps. lxxxviii., Isaiah, Hezekiah, author of the hymn 
Is. xxxviii., Baruch, the friend of Jeremiah, and who not? There are 
some minds that cannot put up with uncertainty, and are under the ne¬ 
cessity of deluding themselves into quietude by fixing on some known 
name. There are others to whom it is a comfort to think that in this 
omniscient age a few things still remain mysterious. Uncertainty is to 
them more suggestive than exact knowledge. No literature has so many 
great anonymous works as that of Israel. The religious life of this peo¬ 
ple was at certain periods very intense, and at these periods the spiritual 
energy of the nation expressed itself almost impersonally, through men 
who forgot themselves and were speedily forgotten in name by others” 
(Davidson’s “Job,” p. lxviii). 

Will yon vote a dogma which makes Professor Davidson a 
heretic? 

(2) Take the book of Ecclesiastes. No Hebrew scholar 
can possibly suppose that it was written by Solomon, be¬ 
cause the Hebrew in which this book is composed is the 
latest in the old Testament. As Delitzsch says: There could 
be no history of the Hebrew language if Ecclesiastes could be 
Solomonic. Will you vote all the great Hebrew scholars of 
the world heretics because they tell you that Koheleth is a 
pseudonym, and that we do not know its author? 

(3) Take the book of Samuel. Professor Kirkpatrick, Regius 
professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, says: 

“ It is generally agreed that the book is a compilation from different 
sources, but who was the compiler, there is no evidence to show. ” 

Will you rule Professor Kirkpatrick out from among the 
orthodox because he cannot accept the old Jewish tradition that 
Samuel was the author of books the most part of which relate 
to events which transpired long after his death? 

(4) Consider the books of Chronicles , Ezra , and Nehemiah. 
Modern scholars regard them as one connected work. Canon 
Driver, Regius professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford, 
says: 

“ A date shortly after B. c. 332 is thus the earliest to which the com¬ 
position of the Chronicles can be plausibly assigned; and it is that which 
is adopted by most modern critics. From the character of his narrative 


124 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


it is a probable inference that the author was a Levite, perhaps even a 
member of the temple choir” (p. 487). 

Will you adopt a dogma that will exclude Canon Driver from 
orthodoxy because he cannot accept the discredited tradition 
that Ezra was the author of all these books? 

(5) Consider the Psalter. What scholar at the present day 
could possibly hold to the old tradition that it was written 
by David, or that the titles are inspired? Listen to Bishop 
Perowne: 

“The conclusion, then, at which we arrive here, is the same as in the 
case of the alleged authorship of certain Psalms. The Inscriptions can¬ 
not always be relied on. They are sometimes genuine, and really rep¬ 
resent the most ancient tradition. At other times they are due to the 
caprice of later editors and collectors, the fruits of conjecture, or of dim¬ 
mer and more uncertain traditions. In short, the Inscriptions of the 
Psalms are like the Subscriptions to the Epistles of the New Testament. 
They are not of any necessary authority, and their value must be weighed 
and tested by the usual critical processes” (Perowne’s “Psalms,” p. 103). 

Doubtless some of you cannot reconcile this statement with 
your dogmatic theory of the Bible. But Biblical scholars have 
no difficulty because they construct their doctrine of the Bible 
from the Bible itself. They do not accept it from dogmaticians. 
Those of you who have been accustomed to associate the 22d 
Psalm with the name of David may stumble at the words of 
the Bishop of Worcester, when he says “that the Psalm was 
composed by one of the exiles during the Babylonian captivity ” 
(p. 44); but if the Bishop is correct in his opinion, it is better 
for you to stumble and fall into truth, than to go right on in 
the smooth and easy road of error. 

(6) Dr. Wright, of the University of London, says with ref¬ 
erence to Proverbs: “The whole book was in ancient times 
regarded as the work of Solomon. The phenomena of the book, 
however, prove it to be of various authorship ” (“ Introduction 
to the Old Testament,” p. 162); and with reference to the Song of 
Songs: “ The opinion of the older critics, that the Song of Songs 
describes dialogues between Solomon and an espoused bride, is 
untenable.” You may be troubled by these various authors of 
Proverbs and the dramatic poet, whose name has not been pre¬ 
served to us, who wrote that wonderful drama of love; but 


THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


125 


these unknown authors trouble you because of your false theory. 
They do not trouble Dr. Wright, nor do they trouble me. Use 
the theory we are opposing as a bridge and you will find that 
it will not bear your weight. If you try to study the literary 
phenomena of Holy Scripture on this bridge, you will be 
obliged to throw over one book after another of your Bible, 
and you will probably lose your own balance in the agony of 
unloading and go over yourself into the gulf of unbelief. 
Many a man has had this experience. I doubt whether any fresh 
and honest mind can escape it, if he attempt to cross the bridge 
of the dogmaticians. 

I might go over the entire Old Testament and show that, 
according to the consensus of the Old Testament scholars of the 
world, the exact truth was stated in my Inaugural, when it 
was said: 

“ It may be regarded as the certain result of the science of the Higher 
Criticism that Moses did not write the Pentateuch or Job ; Ezra did not 
write the Chronicles, Ezra, or Nehemiah; Jeremiah did not write the 
Kings or Lamentations. David did not write the Psalter, but only a few 
of the Psalms; Solomon did not write the Song of Songs or Ecclesiastes, 
and only a portion of the Proverbs; Isaiah did not write half of the book 
that bears his name. The great mass of the Old Testament was written 
by authors whose names or connection with their writings are lost in 
oblivion. If this is destroying the Bible, the Bible is destroyed already. 
But who tells us that these traditional names were the authors of the 
Bible? The Bible itself? The creeds of the Church? Any reliable his¬ 
torical testimony ? None of these ! Pure, conjectural tradition ! Nothing 
more ! We are not prepared to build our faith for time and eternity upon 
such uncertainties as these. We desire to know whether the Bible came 
from God, and it is not of any great importance that we should know 
the names of those worthies chosen by God to mediate His revelation” 
(p. 33). 

The specimens given from the Old Testament have their 
parallels in the Hew Testament. As I have already said: 

“ (a) It is probable that the gospel of Mark was written under the in¬ 
fluence of Peter, and the gospel of Luke under the influence of Paul, but 
there is no evidence that the apostles superintended the writing and pub¬ 
lication of these gospels, and it is not certain that they had very much 
to do with them. Are we to reject these gospels because there is uncer¬ 
tainty as to apostolic superintendence and influence? 

“ (b) The consensus of criticism is against the Pauline authorship of 


.126 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


the epistle to the Hebrews. There is no probability that Paul or any other 
apostle had anything to do with it. Does this destroy its canonicity? 

“ (c) It is not certa in that Matthew wrote the present gospel of Matthew. 
A large number of the best evangelical critics hold that the real Matthew 
was the Aramaic Logia at the basis of the gospel, and that our present 
Matthew is made up chiefly by the use of the original Matthew and the 
gospel of Mark by a later evangelist. Does the canonicity of Matthew 
depend on this question? 

“ (d) The gospel of John, after a long and severe contest, is generally 
acknowledged by critics to be from the hand of the apostle. It is most 
probable that the apostle John wrote it, but this is not certain. Is a 
Christian scholar to be compelled to deny its canonicity if he doubts 
whether John really wrote it? 

“It is evident, if the elder and younger Hodge are correct in their the¬ 
ory of inspiration, that a very large portion of the Bible is in peril from 
the Higher Criticism, and that the only way to save the Bible is to de¬ 
stroy the ‘higher critics. ’ Doubtless many excellent scholars and pious 
men in the Protestant churches really have this opinion; and that is 
one of the gravest perils of the present situation. These dogmaticians 
are responsible for this state of things by the error they have made in 
making inspiration and canonicity dependent upon authenticity ” 
(“Whither?” pp. 84-86). 

It is possible that a majority of this court may agree with 
this modern dogma about the Bible which I am opposing. But 
would you make it an essential and necessary article of faith 
in our Church? Are you prepared to array our Church against 
the Biblical scholars of the world? Are you resolved at all 
hazards to stem the onrushing tide of Biblical criticism? If 
this is your determination, then your legal course is plain. 
Prepare a memorial to the General Assembly requesting them 
to send down overtures to the Presbyteries for an amendment 
of the Confession so as to state this dogma as an essential and 
necessary article. Let us, as honorable men, meet the issue and 
decide it—as we decide other questions of revision. But do not 
try to decide such a momentous question by indirection. Do 
not read into the Confession a dogma which the Westminster 
divines never dreamed of. As honorable Christian gentlemen 
try me by the Confession. You cannot honorably try me by a 
new dogma, forged in a modern school of theology and used as 
a substitute for the Westminster doctrine. If you should do 
such a thing, think you that the counterfeit will not be exposed 
to the Christian world? You would dash our Church to pieces 


THE AUTHENTICITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 


127 


against the roaring waves of an outraged scholarship and an 
affronted Christianity. 

The whole case of the prosecution, therefore, rests upon the 
passages from Holy Scripture. But they have no right to use 
any passages of Holy Scripture which the Church has not used 
in formulating an essential and necessary article of the West¬ 
minster Confession. Therefore they have no right to use these 
passages at all in their prosecution. They have no proof of any 
proposition in the Charge. They have no legal case against 
me. You are obliged in law to dismiss it. 

But inasmuch as these questions of the Higher Criticism are 
burning questions of our times, and it may be difficult to hold 
the judges to a strictly legal view of this case, I shall test all the 
texts of Holy Scripture offered by the prosecution and show 
you that they do not prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch; 
and then I shall show you by indubitable evidence that Holy 
Scripture teaches that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. 

I submit in printed form, that it may be read by the court, 
“Who Wrote the Pentateuch? or, The Higher Criticism of 
the Hexateuch. ” Taking it as read I say: 

We have gone over all the proofs from Holy Scripture pre¬ 
sented by the prosecution to establish the traditional theory of 
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. We have found 
them insufficient and invalid. We have indeed considered 
more than thrice as many passages as they have presented. If 
anything capable of being used as a proof has been omitted we 
do not know it. 

I might have asked you to close the case with this refutation. 
But I was not content, in the present state of opinion in the 
Presbyterian Church, to leave the case in this form. The work 
of the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch has reached such 
substantial results as to appeal to every honest mind to accept 
them. It is not negative in its results, it is positive. It is not 
destructive, it is constructive. It gives vastly more precious 
doctrine and vastly better history than it takes away. It no 
longer occupies a defensive attitude. It is aggressive and is 
sure of erelong convincing evangelical America, as it has 


128 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


already convinced the rest of the world. Therefore I have 
given you a sketch of the history of opinion on the authorship 
of the Pentateuch, and I have presented the argument upon 
which we rely to prove that Moses did not write the Penta¬ 
teuch. These you have before you in printed form, in the 
volume entitled “Who Wrote the Pentateuch? or, The Higher 
Criticism of the Hexateuch. ” Taking this part of my argument 
as read, let me say that it is necessary that you should weigh 
the evidence well which is adduced in this argument ere you 
make a decision upon this important question. It may he that 
many of you will be unable to make a decision on the merits of 
the case. If you cannot, you must give me the benefit of the 
doubt. You cannot vote me guilty of teaching error when I 
say that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, unless you are 
convinced that it is an error. Furthermore, if in your opinion 
it be an error, is it an essential error? Does it contravene any 
essential and necessary article of the Westminster Confession? 
Is it an error that impairs the Westminster system of doctrine? 
If it does not, you cannot condemn me even if you should think 
the error a serious one from your point of view. You must 
judge me by the Westminster Confession, not by your private 
opinion, not by the opinion of any other person in whose judg¬ 
ment you may have more confidence than you have in me. 


YII 

WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 

Charge Y.: 

“ The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
charges the Bev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister 
of the said Church and a member of the Presbytery of Hew 
York, with teaching that Isaiah is not the author of half of the 
book that bears his name, which is contrary to direct statements 
of Holy Scripture and to the essential doctrines of the Standards 
of the said Church that the Holy Scripture evidences itself to 
be the word of God by the consent of all the parts, and that the 
infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture 
itself.” 



WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


129 


We have already discussed under the previous Charge all the 
preliminary questions which arise with reference to this Charge. 
For the Charges do not differ in their statement of the doctrines 
of the Confession which it is claimed are in conflict with my 
teachings, but only in the statement of that special part of my 
teachings which is in conflict with the Confession. There it 
was the doctrine that Moses did not write the Pentateuch; here 
it is the doctrine that Isaiah did not write half of the book that 
bears his name. We have shown that the Westminster Stand¬ 
ards do not directly or indirectly determine the question of the 
authorship of the Pentateuch. It is equally clear that they do 
not directly or indirectly determine the authorship of the book 
of Isaiah. We may therefore go at once to the evidence of the 
“consent of all the parts” and “the infallible interpretation of 
Scripture given by Scripture itself.” 

It is noteworthy at the outset that no evidence whatever is 
presented from the Old Testament. If, as the prosecution claim, 
Isaiah wrote all of the book that bears his name, and Isaiah 
lived and wrote in the age of Hezekiah in the midst of the liter¬ 
ary and historical development of Israel, is it not very remark¬ 
able that they should find no evidence from the literature and 
history of the Old Testament in support of their thesis? I 
shall endeavor to supply this lack and to show you that there 
is a great mass of evidence in the Old Testament to show that 
“Isaiah did not write half the book that bears his name.” 

But first let me call your attention to the fact that the earliest 
rabbinical authority to which we have access does not attribute 
the book of Isaiah to Isaiah as its exclusive author. In the 
Baba Bathra, it is said: “Hezekiah and his company wrote 
Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes.” This 
probably implies editorship rather than authorship. But the 
association of Isaiah with Proverbs in connection with the so- 
called college of Hezekiah implies at least editorial work on 
the part of that college in connection with Isaiah as well as 
with Proverbs, and so far impairs the integrity of the book and 
raises the question what share Isaiah had in the book and what 
share this college had in it. 

This theory of the composition of Isaiah was probably due 
to the circumstance which the most superficial student can 
9 


130 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


hardly fail to notice, that there are four historical chapters in 
the middle of the book (xxxvi.-xxxix.) which were doubtless 
taken from the hook of Kings, with which they agree, except 
for minor editorial changes and the insertion of the song of 
Hezekiah. These chapters, depending on the book of Kings, 
must have been given their present position some time after 
the composition of the hook of Kings. It was easy for the 
ancient rabbins to think that the college of Hezekiah wrote 
this section of the book of Kings on the theory of a succession 
of prophets each contributing a part of the histories until they 
were all completed; but no modern scholar could entertain such 
a theory. These chapters imply, to any one who understands 
the composition of the book of Kings, an exilic or post-exilic 
editor who gave them their present place. 

It is also of some consequence to notice the order of the 
prophets in the most ancient list of the sacred books, namely, 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve. The later Gemara 
or commentary upon this early Beraitha shows that later rab¬ 
bins were troubled by this arrangement. The question is raised: 
“How is it? Isaiah was before Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Ought 
Isaiah to be placed before at the head?” It is answered: “ Since 
the book of Kings ends in ruin, and Jeremiah is all of it ruin, 
and Ezekiel has its beginning ruin and its end comfort, we join 
ruin to ruin and comfort to comfort.” It is possible that some 
of you may be satisfied with this explanation. And yet you 
should not blame me if I conclude that their order was due to 
an early traditional consciousness that Isaiah was a collection 
of writings rather than, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the work of 
a single author, and that therefore it was more appropriately 
placed after Ezekiel and before the collection of the twelve 
minor prophets. At least there was a consciousness that Isaiah 
had to do with the restoration from exile, and therefore that 
it more naturally followed Ezekiel than preceded Jeremiah. 
In later times when this primitive tradition was lost and the 
explanation of the Gemara was followed, the Massorites adopted 
the order, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, which we now follow. 
When now we look at the book of Isaiah, we see that the ancient 
rabbins were entirely correct in their arrangement; for the 
longest and most magnificent prophecy in the Old Testament is 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


131 


given in the last twenty-seven chapters of the book. This 
great prophecy and several lesser anonymous prophecies have 
for their theme the destruction of Babylon and the restoration 
of the Jews. Accordingly one feels that the logical order is 
certainly Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, and the question springs 
into the mind, and it cannot be restrained, Was not that the 
chronological order likewise? 

It does not seem reasonable to suppose that an exilic or post- 
exilic editor would insert the four historical chapters in the 
midst of the prophecies of Isaiah. He would append the his¬ 
torical chapters to the prophecies if those prophecies had indeed 
come down to him in a book bearing the name of Isaiah. He 
would not tamper with its structure. If, however, we suppose 
that this editor did not have before him a book of Isaiah’s 
prophecies containing all these prophecies, and that the editor 
collected all these prophecies and issued them in the form in 
which we now find them, how do we know that he edited them 
as Isaiah’s prophecies? How do we know that he did not edit 
them as a collection of prophecies, giving those of Isaiah first 
and afterward others of other unknown prophets? 

The title at the beginning of the book of Isaiah is as follows: 

“ The vision of Isaiah the son of Amos, which he saw con¬ 
cerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, 
Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.” 

This is appropriate to the first collection I.-XI., but certainly 
has no propriety of reference to the second collection of mes¬ 
sages to the nations or to the other and later parts of the book; 
and then again we have no clew to the historical value of this 
title. It has been shown, many times, that the titles of the 
Psalms and of other portions of the Old Testament writings are 
often mere conjectures of late scribes, and that these are not to 
he considered as a part of the inspired Scriptures. But what¬ 
ever we may think of this matter, this title does not cover the 
whole of the present book, as its contents show. 

The great prophecy in the last twenty-seven chapters bears 
no title: it is anonymous. There is nothing about it, therefore, 
to indicate that its editor or original author designed that it 
should be regarded as by Isaiah. Is it not the more natural 
supposition that this great prophecy was at first apart by itself 


132 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


and that the collection originally closed with the four historical 
chapters; and that in the first arrangement of the second divi¬ 
sion of the canon into the four prophetic histories and the four 
prophetic writings, as the twelve were grouped into one book, 
so the prophecy of the Great Unknown was joined to the col¬ 
lection of prophecies embracing the first thirty-nine chapters of 
Isaiah so as to make the four books as nearly as possible equal 
in size? Let me give you a general statement of this wonder¬ 
ful prophecy. 


1.—The Prophecy , Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 

Isaiah xl.-lxvi. is a book of comfort, cheering the exiles of 
Israel with the promise of the advent of Yahweh to redeem them 
from bondage and restore them to their holy land. It is a 
further unfolding of Jeremiah’s book of comfort. The apoca¬ 
lypse of Isaiah xxxiv., xxxv. is its prelude, but it differs from 
that apocalypse in that the order of judgment and redemption 
is inverted. The judgment of the nations is separated from the 
judgment of Babylon, and is associated with the new Jerusa¬ 
lem in a final conflict there after the model of Ezekiel. This is 
given in the appendix to the prophecy, and does not enter into 
the unfolding of its great theme. The prophecy itself is rather 
a presentation of the glories of redemption. The author stands 
on the loftiest peak of prophecy. He masses more Messianic 
predictions in his book than any of the prophets that preceded 
him. He carries the Messianic idea to a muclj higher stage of 
development, so that he becomes the evangelical prophet, who 
seems to be the nearest to the Messiah and the theology of the 
new Covenant. The circumstances of the exile were favorable 
to this. It is doubtful whether it was possible for a prophet 
living in the land of Israel, in the use of the ceremonial of the 
temple of Solomon, or the temple of Zerubbabel, to attain those 
profound spiritual conceptions of God and divine things that 
pervade the whole of this sublime poem. Even Ezekiel was too 
near the old temple to escape altogether from the influence of 
its institutions. But the prophecy of the Great Unknown re¬ 
flects the experience of a prophet who had lived long in exile. 
To him the worship of Yahweh consists in prayer and fasting, in 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


133 


observance of the Sabbath, and keeping pure from the abomina¬ 
tions of the heathen.* By these more spiritual religious exer¬ 
cises the faithful people of God could testify their attachment 
to the religion of their fathers, without any sacred places or 
sacred institutions. They were thereby brought into closer 
communion with their God, when priestly mediation and cere¬ 
monial access were out of the question. 

This marvellous prophecy is certainly in its present form a 
single composition, and yet it is difficult to show any close con¬ 
nection between its parts. Many of them can be removed with¬ 
out disturbing the flow of its thought and emotion. There is 
indeed a lack of connection in several places that has attracted 
the attention of critics, and has led to the conjecture that the 
prophet uses several more ancient prophecies. This should not 
surprise us, for it is characteristic of the writers of the period 
to use older prophets. There are not a few citations from earlier 
writings that are evident, f These examples suggest that there 
are others that are not so evident, but that may be detected by 
the methods of literary criticism. 

The prophecy is divided into three sections of nine chapters 
each by the refrains,]; xlviii. 22, lvii. 20, 21, lxvi. 24. 

But these refrains are more suited to the last chapter than to 
the body of the prophecy. We should expect that the refrains 
of the prophecy would emphasize rather its great theme. A 
closer examination of the piece discloses just such refrains as 
we should expect in xlii. 14-17, xlviii. 20-22, lii. 11, 12, lvii. 
14-21, lxii. 10-12. These all involve the divine advent and the 
deliverance from Babylon. 

The last of these refrains corresponds so closely with the 
introduction to the prophecy xl. 1-12 that we may regard it as 
the original conclusion. This is in accord with other pecul¬ 
iarities of the closing section. The little piece, lxiii. 1-6, is 
of earlier date. It has no sort of connection with its present 
context. And the section lxiii. 7-lxvi. betrays a later period 
of composition and a different train of thought from that which 
pervades the body of the prophecy. The division of the 

*See especially Isa. lii. 11, lvi. 1-8, lviii., lxvi. 17. 

f See Isa. li. 11, lxv. 25. 

fSee Delitzsch, “Isaiah,” ii. p. 129. 



134 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


prophecy into three parts seems to have come from the final 
arrangement when the appendix was added. 

A careful examination of the body of the prophecy discloses 
other features that show earlier and later sections. There are 
differences in rhythm—trimeters, pentameters, and hexa¬ 
meters.* These differences might have been designed to give 
variety of movement to a poem of such great length. But there 
are certain facts that seem to imply that the trimeters were 
originally a prophecy by itself. The introduction, the conclu¬ 
sion, and the intervening refrains have the longer movement. 
If there be a difference in date, the trimeters must be earlier 
than the framework of the prophecy that incloses them. There 
are also several long pieces of the pentameter movement and 
lyrics in the hexameter movement. But there are several other 
important differences, among which we may mention—(1) 
That the great theme of the trimeters is the divine advent for 
the deliverance of the servant of Yah weh, and that in the penta¬ 
meters and hexameters the wife and mother, Zion, takes the place 
of the servant in a parallel representation; (2) that the great con¬ 
queror who is to be the divine instrument in the deliverance of 
Israel is referred to in the trimeters in general terms, but in 
the other part of the poem is named by his name, Cyrus; f (3) 
that the pentameters use quite frequently the divine name 
’Adonay Yahweh. It seems to me, therefore, that there was 
an earlier prophecy with the trimeter movement, whose great 
theme was the divine deliverance of the servant of Yahweh, 
and that this was taken up into a larger prophecy in a second 
edition and associated with a parallel theme, the divine deliver¬ 
ance of Zion, the wife of Yahweh. 

The trimeter poem that constitutes the original basis of the 
prophecy of the Great Unknown seems to have had its own divi- 


* “ It is not always easy to distinguish hexameters from trimeters, for 
the csesura of the hexameter usually falls in the middle of the line divid¬ 
ing it into two trimeters. But they may be distinguished in part by the 
occurrence of the csesura sometimes after the second accent and sometimes 
after the fourth accent; and in part by the fact that the second half of 
the hexameter line is complementary to the first ” (“ Biblical Study, ” p. 
283). 

f Isa. xliv. 28, xlv. 1; comp. xlvi. 11. 



WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


135 


sions. We may distinguish five parts: (1) xl. 12-xli. 10, xli. 
13-xlii. 13; (2) xlii. 18-xliv. 23; (3) xlviii. 1-11, xlix. 1-13; 
(4) lii. 13, liii., lv.; (5) lviii.-lix., lxi. These parts close with 
little hymns or pieces of similar character. The theme of these 
trimeters is the deliverance of the servant of Yahweh. 

The second edition of the prophecy is a book of comfort to 
Zion, who is personified and represented as the wife of Yahweh 
and the mother of its inhabitants. The introduction, the conclu¬ 
sion, and the four intermediate refrains, together with the 
several pieces with which they are connected, all set forth the 
same theme. The advent of Yahweh is at hand. He comes to 
comfort Zion and restore her wastes. His people are to go 
forth from Babylon and pass through the wilderness to the Holy 
Land. The scenes of the exodus from Egypt are to he tran¬ 
scended in marvellous transformations of nature and by the 
wonders of the divine guidance. Zion is the central figure of 
this second edition of the prophecy, as the servant of Yahweh is 
the chief feature of the first edition. 

The prophecy of the Great Unknown was finally issued with 
an appendix embracing chaps, lxiii.-lxvi. This is composed 
of one little piece of trimeter poetry of an early date, already 
considered in an appropriate place, and two larger pieces of 
longer rhythm. The earlier of these, chaps. Ixiii. 7, lxiv., 
is a lamentation and supplication. The latter, chaps, lxv., 
lxvi., is apocalyptic in character, resembling those apocalypses 
that we have considered at the opening of this chapter. The 
judgment is here a discrimination between the righteous and 
the wicked without regard to nationality. 

The internal evidences for the exilic composition of this great 
prophecy are overwhelming. 

(1) The argument from language. 

This is so well presented by Canon Driver in his “ Isaiah, 
His Life and Times,” that I beg leave to call your attention to his 
word lists. He gives thirty-seven items of words and phrases of 
the Isaiah of the age of Hezekiah and thirty-one items of words 
and phrases of the Great Unknown, which show unmistakably 
that these are not only different writers, but writers far apart 
in time. 

I shall mention a few of the more striking examples. 


136 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


As Driver says, the figure of “ Yahweh’s hand ‘stretched 
out’ or ‘swung’ over the earth, and bearing consternation with 
it, ” is applied by Isaiah with singular picturesqueness and force: 
v. 25; ix. 11, 16, 20; x. 4; xiv. 26, 27; xxiii. 11; xxxi. 3; xi. 
15; xix. 16. It is used so often as to be characteristic. 

The Great Unknown uses often the “ Arm of Yahweh: ” xl. 
11; xxviii. 14; li. 5, a and b, 9; lii. 10; liii. 1; lix. 16 b (cf. xl. 
10); Ixii. 8; lxiii. 5, 12. It is one of his characteristics. This 
last is used in Isaiah only in xxx. 30; xxxiii. 2. 

(2) utk as a divine name is used in Isaiah nineteen times, but 

in the Great Unknown only in xlix. 14, and here apparently 
not as a divine name, but as an address—my lord. mm 

is used eight times in Isaiah, but is not in the Great Unknown, 
rmox mm appears thirty-three times in Isaiah, but only six times 
in the Great Unknown. nwa* mm jmn is characteristic of Isaiah: 
i. 24; iii. 1; x. 33; xix. 4 x. 16 in common M. T.; not Mas- 
sora, doubtless scrib. error), but is not used by the Great 
Unknown. mm is used in the Great Unknown fourteen 
times, but in Isaiah only in vii. 7; xxviii. 16; xxx. 15. The 
usage of Isaiah agrees with Amos, whereas the Great Unknown 
agrees in usage with Ezekiel. Elohim alone is used but once 
in Isaiah and Elohim with suffixes four times. But in the 
Great Unknown Elohim is used nine times alone and twenty- 
nine times with suffixes, showing a tending to the later post- 
exilic usage. 

(3) Several Aramaic words are to be noticed in the Great 
Unknown, e.g. “vn to test , try for xlviii. 10; and Ara¬ 
maic Ixv. 25 for *]vp of Is. xi. 6, 7. 

(4) The Great Unknown shows a fondness for the particles 
*1* (fourteen times), (ten times), li®*? (fifteen times), as is 
noted by Dillmann. 

(5) Driver calles attention to the fact that in relative clauses 
the relative is omitted by Isaiah only six times, whereas in the 
Great Unknown it is omitted nearly sixty times. 

(6) I have noticed a syntactical usage which, so far as I 
know, others have not mentioned. Quite frequently in the 
Great Unknown there is a departure from classic usage in that 
the weak waw with the imperfect is used for the waw con¬ 
secutive of the perfect of the classic style. This corresponds 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


137 


with the usage of Ezekiel, who gives the weak waw with the 
perfect for the waw consecutive of the imperfect. 

II.—Argument from Style 

The argument from style is so well stated by Driver in his 
comparison of Isaiah with the Great Unknown that it is suffi¬ 
cient to quote him: 

“ There are also literary features of a more general character, 
which differentiate the author of c. 40-66 from Isaiah. Isaiah’s 
style is terse and compact: the movement of his periods is 
stately and measured; his rhetoric is grave and restrained. 
In these chapters a subject is often developed at considerable 
length; the style is much more flowing; the rhetoric is warm 
and impassioned, and the prophet often bursts out into a lyric 
strain (42, 10 f. 44, 23. 45, 8. 49, 13), in a manner to which even 
Isa. 12 affords no parallel. Force is the predominant feature 
of Isaiah’s oratory; persuasion sits upon the lips of the prophet 
who here speaks; the music of his eloquence, as it rolls mag¬ 
nificently along, thrills and captivates the soul of its hearer. 
So, again, if the most conspicuous characteristic of Isaiah’s 
imagination be grandeur , that of the prophet to whom we are 
here listening is pathos. The storms, the inundations, the 
sudden catastrophes which Isaiah loves to depict are scarcely 
io be found in this prophecy. The author’s imagery is drawn 
by preference from a different region of nature altogether, viz., 
from the animate world, in particular from the sphere of 
human emotion. It is largely the figures drawn from the 
latter which impart to his prophecy its peculiar pathos and 
warmth (see 49, 15. 18. 61, 10 b . 62, 5. 66, 13). His fondness 
for such figures is, however, most evident in the numerous 
examples of personification which his prophecy contains. 
Since Amos (5, 2) it became habitual with the prophets to per¬ 
sonify a city or community as a maiden , especially where it 
was desired to represent it as vividly conscious of some keen 
emotion. This figure is applied in these chapters with remark¬ 
able independence and originality. Zion is represented as a 
widow, a mother, a bride, i.e., under just those relations of life 
in which the deepest feelings of humanity come into play; and 


138 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


the personification is continued sometimes through a long series 
of verses. Nor is this all. The prophet personifies nature: 
he bids heaven and earth shout at the restoration of God’s peo¬ 
ple (44, 23. 49, 13; of. 52, 9. 55, 12); he hears in imagination 
the voice of invisible beings sounding across the desert (40, 3. 
6. 57, 14); he peoples Jerusalem with ideal watchmen (52, 8) 
and guardians (62, 6). Akin to these personifications is the 
dramatic character of the representation, which also prevails 
to a remarkable extent in the prophecy (see 40, 3 ff. 49, 1 ff. 
50, 4-9. 53, 1 ff. 58, 3\ 61, 10 f. 63, 1-6).” 


111.—The Argument from Biblical Theology 

The theology of the Great Unknown is so far above the theology 
of Isaiah that it is difficult to see how any who compares them 
can doubt that there has been a great theological development 
in the interval between them. I shall present a few specimens. 

(1) The doctrine of God in the Great Unknown is even more 
exalted than in the book of Job. Any one who can believe 
that Job was written by Moses might also believe that the 
great prophecy we are considering was written by Isaiah, but 
it is impossible for a man who knows that Job was not written 
earlier than the age of Josiah to suppose that the Great 
Unknown was written earlier than the age of Josiah. (a) 
The Great Unknown emphasizes the doctrine that Yahweh is 
the only God in a heaping up of expressions of great variety: 

“Thus saith Yahweh, the King of Israel, and his redeemer Yahweh 
Sabaoth: I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no 
God. ... Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no Rock; I know 
not any” (xliv. 6, 8 b). 

“I am Yahweh, and there is none else; beside me there is no God: 
I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me : that they may know 
from the rising of the »un, and from the west, that there is none beside 
me : I am Yahweh, and there is none else” (xlv. 5, 6). 

“ Surely God is in thee ; and there is none else ; there is no God. Verily 
thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. . . . And 
there is no God else beside me: a just God and a Saviour; there is none 
beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: 
for I am God, and there is none else ” (xlv. 14 b, 15, 21 b, 22). 

“ Neither hath the eye seen a God beside thee ” (lxiv. 4 b). 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


139 


This doctrine was appropriate for an exilic prophet brought 
face to face with the religions of the great nations of the 
Euphrates. But Isaiah has no such statements. They were 
not needed in his time. He had to emphasize the majesty and 
sanctity of God. 

(b) The Great Unknown emphasizes the doctrine that Yah- 
weh was “the first” and Yahweh was “the last,” and that He 
was “the same: ” “I Yahweh the first, and with the last, I am 
the same” (xli. 4 b). “I am the first, and I am the last; and 
beside me there is no God” (xliv. 6 b). “I am the same; I 
am the first, I also am the last” (xlviii. 12 b). 

These expressions have nothing to correspond with them in 
Isaiah. 

(c) The doctrine of the divine Spirit in Isaiah is still the 
ancient doctrine. It was to be poured on the Messianic King to 
endow Him with the sevenfold endowment for His reign of 
peace (Is. xi. 2). It was to be poured on the land to trans¬ 
form it from a wilderness to a garden (Is. xxxii. 15), and with¬ 
out guidance by the divine Spirit apostate children add sin 
to sin (Is. xxx. 1); but in the Great Unknown the doctrine 
reaches a height which has no parallel except in the late 139th 
Psalm. The divine Spirit endows the Messianic Servant in 
xlii. 1; lxi. 1; and will revive the nation, xliv. 3; it accom¬ 
panies the ministry of the prophets, xlviii. 16. But in chapter 
lxiii. 10, the Spirit is named the Holy Spirit, an epithet used 
elsewhere in the Old Testament only in Psalm li. 13. It is per¬ 
sonified beyond any other passage in the Old Testament. It 
is represented that He was grieved by the rebellion of the 
Israelites in the wilderness, that He led them in their journeys 
to the Holy Land, and that He was in the midst of them. 
Thus the Holy Spirit is assigned the work of the theophanic 
angel of the historical narrative of JE, and especially as 
bearing with Him the divine face or presence as in the docu¬ 
ment J. The Holy Spirit is associated with the theophanic 
angel here, just as in the book of wisdom, Proverbs, 1st chapter, 
the divine Spirit and the divine Wisdom are associated. This 
conception of the divine Spirit shows a marked advance not 
only beyond Isaiah, but also beyond Ezekiel. 

(d) The doctrine of creation in Isaiah is confined to a use of 


140 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


the verb in Isaiah xvii. 7, where God is represented as the 
Maker of man; is used in Isaiah iv. 5 with reference to the 
cloud and fire which are to protect redeemed Jerusalem. But 
the doctrine of creation is one of the most characteristic doc¬ 
trines of the Great Unknown. He heaps up terms and de¬ 
scriptive epithets to set it forth in xl. 12 f, 26-28; xlii. 5; xliii. 
7, 21; xliv. 2, 21, 24; xlv. 7, 9-11, 12, 18; xlviii. 13; xlix. 
5; li. 13; liv. 16; lvii. 16, 19. In his doctrine he tran¬ 
scends every pre-exilic writer. The late word is used by the 
Great Unknown twenty times. ISTo other writer can compare 
with this. 

(2) In the doctrine of redemption, a more spiritual conception 
pervades the Great Unknown than any pre-exilic writer. Yah- 
weh often names himself or is called “ Saviour ” (xliii. 3, 11; 
xlv. 15, 21; xlix. 26; lx. 16; lxiii. 8) and “Redeemer” (xli. 
14; xliii. 14; xliv. 6, 24; xlvii. 4; xlviii. 17; xlix. 7, 26; liv. 
5, 8; lix. 20; lx. 16; lxiii. 16)—phrases unknown to Isaiah. 

The verb Vjo is not in Isaiah at all, but is found in the Great 
Unknown. God’s people are “redeemed” Is. li. 10; 

lxii. 12; lxiii. 4; an expression found elsewhere only in Is. 
xxxv. 9, which also is exilic as we shall see, and Ps. cvii. 2. 
The doctrine of salvation is sung with every variety of the 
sweetest expressions that the poet can conceive of, to such an 
extent that this prophecy is recognized as the gospel in the 
Old Testament. The conception of redemption in Is. lvii. 15 
and lxvi. 1, 2 is unspeakably sublime: 

“ For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose 
name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is 
of a contrite and humble spirit to revive the spirit of the humble, and 
to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” 

“ Thus saith Yahweh, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my 
footstool: what manner of house will ye build unto me? and what place 
shall be my rest? For all these things hath mine hand made, and so all 
these things came to be, saith Yahweh: but to this man will I look, even 
to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my 
word. ” 

This doctrine is divine and not human. It could hardly have 
been conceived prior to the experience of Israel in exile when 
they were excluded from sacred places and ceremonial religion, 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


141 


and were compelled to a spiritual religion. These passages are 
re-echoed in the 51st Psalm. 

(3) In the Messianic idea the Great Unknown advances far 
beyond Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even Ezekiel. These are all pre¬ 
supposed in his great prophecy, as I have shown in the chapters 
devoted to the subject in my “Messianic Prophecy.” 

(a) The most characteristic feature of this Messianic proph¬ 
ecy is the servant of Jahveh and especially of the suffering 
Servant. Let me repeat from my “ Messianic Prophecy.” The 
exile w T as a bitter experience for the pious Israelite. It tran¬ 
scended the woes of the Egyptian bondage. For then the Holy 
Land was a bright prospect that had not yet been attained; but 
now the Holy Land had been lost through the sin and folly of 
the people of God. The pious keenly felt that they were 
deprived of blessings which they ought to have inherited. They 
needed redemption of sin even more than deliverance from 
oppressors. The pious were indeed the greatest sufferers, for 
they shared in the persecution to which Jeremiah and others 
like-minded had been subjected by the wicked princes and 
their followers among the people. Piety was now synonymous 
with affliction and sorrow. The ideal of the suffering Messiah 
had its genesis in these circumstances, and yet it was not with¬ 
out connection with earlier Messianic prophecies. The ideal 
man of the poem of the creation and of the codes of the Penta¬ 
teuch had not been realized in the experience of Israel or man¬ 
kind. The curses were earned and the blessings were forfeited. 
The problem of redemption was no longer simply the education 
of the race for its attainment of the divine ideal, or the training 
of Israel in the sacred institutions of redemption; but first of 
all they must be delivered from the curse of sin and the penal¬ 
ties of broken covenants and vows. The problem of redemption 
became complicated owing to the fact that not only did the sinner 
suffer for his evil deeds, but the righteous man who strove to 
serve God, to attain the divine ideal, and to gain the promised 
blessings, increased his sufferings and sorrows thereby. He 
separated himself from his evil surroundings only to incur 
enmity and persecution. He suffered no longer for sin, but for 
righteousness’ sake. Ideal manhood is to be gained only 
through the real manhood of fortitude, perseverance, and the 


142 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


patient endurance of persecutions even unto death. This con¬ 
ception is found in germ in the protevangelium. The conflict 
with Satan and the forces of evil was accompanied with peril, 
and the victory was to be gained only through suffering. It is 
also contained in the covenants with Abraham and David. 
What Egypt was to the seed of Abraham, that the exile 
became to the seed of Abraham, David, and the children of Israel. 
The wilderness was the way to the Holy Land of redemption, 
and the entrance was through the vale of tribulation. But the 
circumstances of the exile, and especially the experience of the 
persecuted Jeremiah and his associates, taught the people of 
God lessons they had never learned before. The sufferings of 
the nation in exile were to discharge the penalties of its trans¬ 
gressions, but were not to result in ultimate ruin. The nation 
had indeed died, but it was to rise again in a great resurrection. 
The faithful prophets, the teachers of the nation, are not to 
suffer persecution and death in vain; they are to earn and 
receive the rewards of their faithfulness. There are several 
psalms of the exile that present to our view a great sufferer who 
can hardly be any other than the Messiah. It seems probable 
that Jeremiah was the type of the great sufferer, for he was 
the hero of the exiles, the great historical sufferer for God. But 
even this prince of sufferers does not attain the heights of the 
ideal of these psalms. He is the basis of the representation, 
but the divine Spirit guided the psalmists to discern and describe 
a sufferer whose experience was vastly more bitter than that of 
Jeremiah, and whose sufferings were rewarded with a redemp¬ 
tion which Jeremiah did not gain (pp. 320 - 322 ). 

On the basis of this suffering the great prophet of the exile 
constructs his image of the servant of Yahweh. 

In Is. 61 the idea of the servant of Yahweh reaches its cli¬ 
max. It was not without reason that the Messiah recognized 
Himself more distinctly in this picture, and employed it in His 
discourse in the synagogue of Nazareth to explain His mission 
to His unbelieving kindred and townsmen, for here we see the 
Messiah preaching the gospel of redemption that he has already 
achieved, enjoying the fruits of his ministry, and rejoicing in 
the accomplishment of his work. He is anointed with the di¬ 
vine Spirit, as in the first passage, Is. xlii., and becomes a gentle 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


143 


preacher. There he was unostentatious and meek in his entire 
work, not breaking off the broken reed or putting out the faint 
wick, but yet releasing the captives. Here he has the same 
work, hut as he describes his own mission and work he 
enlarges upon this feature of it, and we see him binding up the 
broken-hearted, comforting mourners, giving them festal robes 
instead of the ashes and sackcloth of humiliation and mourn¬ 
ing. There he was the light of the nations, as well as the cove¬ 
nant of Israel. This feature was enlarged in the second repre¬ 
sentation (xlix. 1-7). He raises up the tribes of Jacob, re¬ 
stores them to their own land, and becomes salvation to the 
ends of the earth. Here this is still further enlarged. The re¬ 
deemed become like terebinths of righteousness, they build the 
wastes of Judah and Jerusalem, they become the priests of the 
nations, and the nations become their servants. Thus they real¬ 
ize their original ideal as set forth in the covenant of Horeb. 
They are recognized by the nations as the seed that enjoy the 
blessing of Yahweh, and thus attain the Abrahamic covenant. 
They enjoy the new covenant with its everlasting joy and pros¬ 
perity, which is now familiar to us from the representations of 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Great Unknown himself. This 
prophecy thus sums up in itself, and enlarges upon all the previ¬ 
ous descriptions of the servant, with the exception of those relat¬ 
ing to the suffering substitute. That picture presented fully the 
servant’s condition of humiliation. It mentioned the servant’s 
exaltation only at the beginning and at the conclusion. 
That which was left undeveloped there is here the subject of 
the picture. The servant is here not engaged in the work of 
substitution and interposition, but he is employed in proclaim¬ 
ing the results of it, and in applying the fruits of it, in the 
preaching of the gospel of redemption to the poor and miserable. 
The sin-bearing servant needs as his counterpart the joyful 
preacher of the glad tidings of a redemption that has been 
accomplished. The servant no longer bears the name of ser¬ 
vant, he is preparing the poor and sorrowful for the festival of 
redemption of the year of grace. It is most fitting, therefore, 
that the prophecy should conclude with a song of joy in the 
mouth of the great preacher. He has accomplished his mis¬ 
sion, and is entitled to its rewards, and the saddest of all sor- 


144 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


rows has been transformed into the purest and loftiest joy (pp. 
371-373). 

The prediction of the suffering Messiah stands out most 
naturally upon the background of the exile. The royal Messiah, 
the prince of peace, appears in the frame of the age of Isaiah. 
The Messianic servant is as appropriate to the exile as the 
Messianic king to the reign of Hezekiah. We cannot trans¬ 
pose them or put them side by side in the same author and the 
same period without impairing their historic value and their 
predictive verisimilitude. 

(6) The second most prominent feature in this great prophecy 
is the comfort given to Zion, who is personified and represented 
as the wife and mother of its inhabitants. It is easy to show 
that this representation presupposes the book of comfort of 
Jeremiah 30, 31 and the predictions of Zephaniah and Ezekiel as 
well as of Hosea, and that it transcends them all in its exhibi¬ 
tions of the tenderness of the marital relation between Zion and 
Yahweh and of the beauty and glory of the new Jerusalem. 
Take for example: 

“ And the foreigners who join themselves unto Yahweh to minister to him, 

And to love the name of Yahweh, to become servants unto him, 

Every one keeping the Sabbath from polluting it, and those who are 
firm in my covenant, 

I will bring them unto my holy mountain, and I will make them rejoice 
in my house of prayer; 

Their burnt-offerings and their peace-offerings will be for acceptance 
upon mine altar, 

For my house will be proclaimed a house of prayer for all peoples.” 

—Isa. lvi. 6, 7. 

This passage is the most advanced of all those that we have 
met, relating to the share of the nations in the redemption of 
Israel. Isaiah predicts that Egypt will serve Yahweh with 
peace-offerings, vegetable-offerings and votive-offerings (xix. 
21); and in Zephaniah the Cushites bring incense-offerings and 
the Libyans vegetable-offerings (iii. 10). So here foreigners in 
general will bring burnt-offerings and peace-offerings to the di¬ 
vine altar and find acceptance. The temple is no longer a merely 
Jewish temple, it has become a universal temple. As such it 
is more than a place of sacrifice, it is a place of prayer. The 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


145 


prophet rises above the conception of Ezekiel to the idea of a uni¬ 
versal religion. The sacrifices are still here, for the Old Testa¬ 
ment point of view cannot yet be abandoned; but the sacrifices 
are in the background. As the qualifications for participation 
in the blessings of redemption are no longer national, but coven¬ 
ant-keeping and Sabbath observance, conditions that all nations 
might fulfil, so the most significant feature of the new worship 
is prayer, and the world-wide name of the temple of Yahweh 
will be house of prayer for all peoples (“Mess. Proph.,” p. 392). 

IV.—The Historical Situation 

The argument from the historical situation is so well stated 
by Canon Driver that I shall again venture to quote him: 

“ Three independent lines of argument converge to show that 
this prophecy is not the work of Isaiah, but, like 13, 2-14, 23, 
has for its author a prophet writing toward the close of the 
Babylonian captivity. (1) The internal evidence supplied by 
the prophecy itself points to this period as that at which it was 
written. It alludes repeatedly to Jerusalem as ruined and 
deserted (e.g. 44, 26\ 58, 12. 61, 4. 63, 18. 64, 10 f.); to the 
sufferings which the Jews have experienced, or are experiencing, 
at the hands of the Chaldseans (42, 22. 25. 43, 28. [R. Y. marg. J 
47, 6. 52, 5); to the prospect of return, which, as the prophet 
speaks, is imminent (40, 2. 46, 13. 48, 20, etc.). Those whom 
the prophet addresses, and, moreover, addresses in person — 
arguing with them, appealing to them striving to win their 
assent by his warm and impassioned rhetoric (40, 21. 26. 28. 
43, 10. 48, 8. 50, 10 f. 51, 6. 12 f. 58, 3 ff., etc.)—are not the 
men of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Ahaz and Hekeziah, or 
even of Manasseh; they are the exiles in Babylonia. Judged 
by the analogy of prophecy , this constitutes the strongest 
possible presumption that the author actually lived in the 
period which he thus describes, and is not merely (as has been 
supposed) Isaiah immersed in spirit in the future, and holding 
converse, as it were, with the generations yet unborn. Such 
an immersion in the future would be not only without paral¬ 
lel in the O.T., it would be contrary to the nature of proph¬ 
ecy. The prophet speaks always, in the first instance, to his 
10 


146 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


own contemporaries; the message which he brings is intimately 
related with the circumstances of his time: his promises and 
predictions, however far they reach into the future, never¬ 
theless rest upon the basis of the history of his own age, and 
correspond to the needs which are then felt. The prophet never 
abandons his own historical position, but speaks from it. So 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for instance, predict first the exile, 
then the restoration; both are contemplated by them as still 
future; both are viewed from the period in which they them¬ 
selves live. In the present prophecy there is no prediction of 
exile; the exile is not announced as something still future: it 
is presupposed , and only the release from it is predicted. By 
analogy, therefore, the author will have lived in the situation 
which he thus presupposes, and to which he continually alludes ” 
(“Lit. of O. T.,” pp, 223, 224). 

To these words of Driver let me add the following: 

This wondrous prophecy, as it has expanded in three suc¬ 
cessive editions, finds its only appropriate historical situation 
in the exile. Looking forward from thence it builds on all the 
previous prophets, and transcends them all in the bulk and 
grandeur of its representations. It is related to the book of 
Ezekiel as the inner to the outer; as the essential spirit and 
substance to its formal envelope. It seems to me that Ezekiel 
could never have written his apocalypse if he had seen or heard 
of the doctrines of Isa. xl.-lxvi. It is indeed not at all strange 
that some Jewish rabbins and some modern scholars have 
doubted the inspiration of Ezekiel, who differs so greatly from 
the Mosaic codes on the one side and from Isa. xl.-lxvi. on the 
other. The difficulty is resolved only when we see that Ezekiel 
stands on a lower stage in the development of the Messianic 
idea than the Great Unknown, who had Ezekiel and Jeremiah, 
the exile and the body of ancient prophecy behind him; and 
thus could grasp the whole doctrine of his predecessors, and 
rise from it to greater heights of prediction (“Mess. Proph.,” 
pp. 408, 409). 

We have now gone over the argument from the book of Isaiah 
itself and have seen that the great prophecy in the last twenty- 
seven chapters is from a great unknown prophet writing during 
the exile. 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


147 


V.—The Testimony of the New Testament 

We are confronted by testimony from the New Testament 
presented by the prosecution. We have already considered 
under the previous Charge the principles which should deter¬ 
mine the evidence to be derived from the use of the Old Testa¬ 
ment in the New Testament. We have only to consider the 
passages themselves. There are six of them. None of them 
give the words of Jesus. Two are the words of the evangelist 
Matthew, two give the words of Luke, one the testimony of 
John, and one of Paul. The passages referred to in the book 
of Isaiah are chapters vi. 9, 10; ix. 1, 2 of the earlier collec¬ 
tion, and five well-known passages of the great prophecy of the 
exile, namely, xl. 3-5; xlii. 1-3; liii. 1; lxi. 1, 2; lxv. 1, 2. The 
two passages from the earlier collection are not in question, 
because I do not deny that Isaiah wrote them; but only those 
from chapters xl.-lxvi. If these New Testament writers testify 
that Isaiah wrote these passages, then the testimony of the New 
Testament is against the opinion that I have expressed that 
Isaiah did not write half of the book that bears his name; but 
these writers testify no such thing. Their language is pre¬ 
cisely the same in form as that we have considered in connec¬ 
tion with similar passages relating to the Pentateuch. In the 
original specification we find a reference to “the roll of the 
prophet Isaiah” of Luke iv. 17,18, which Jesus took when He 
expounded the 61st chapter from it. This has been omitted 
from the Amended Specification. It certainly does not imply 
any more than that it was the roll which bore the name of the 
prophet Isaiah. We may interpret in several ways: either that 
Isaiah wrote it all, as the prosecution hold, or that he wrote the 
earlier portions of it, and so the prophecies appended by later 
editors to the book did not change its name; or that it came 
down by tradition associated with the name of Isaiah, having 
been edited under his name when the second canon was estab¬ 
lished. It no more implies authorship than the book of Ruth 
or the book of Esther imply authorship by Ruth or Esther. 

“ The book of the words of Isaiah the prophet ” (Luke iii. 4) 
is only an enlargement of the previous phrase by the insertion 
of the term “words;” but it does not prove authorship any 


148 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


more than the previous phrase. It may be explained in the 
same way. 

“Spoken through Isaiah the prophet,” of Matthew xii. 17; 
“word of Isaiah the prophet,” of John xii. 38; “Isaiah said,” 
* John xii. 41; “Isaiah saith,” Rom. x. 16, 20, do not imply any 
more than “the book of Isaiah saith,” “spoken through the book 
of Isaiah,” “ word of the hook of Isaiah,” and they have as their 
exact parallels, “ All the prophets from Samuel and them that 
followed after, as many as have spoken they also told of these 
days,” Acts iii. 24. 

It is quite possible that I may not be able to convince this 
court that my interpretation of these references to the book of 
Isaiah in the New Testament is the true one, and that you may 
prefer the interpretation which the prosecution put upon these 
words. But have you any right to force your interpretation 
upon me? Yo Church in Christendom has decided the inter¬ 
pretation of these passages. There is no interpretation given 
of them in the Westminster Standards. You have your right 
of free interpretation under our Constitution. I also have my 
right which you cannot legally take from me, unless you can 
put your interpretation into our Constitution by the lawful 
process of revision. I am within my rights in giving you the 
interpretation I have given. But this is not all I have given. 
I have shown you that you cannot take the interpretation of the 
prosecution without bringing these five passages of the Yew 
Testament into conflict with the weight of the testimony of the 
Old Testament itself. The testimony of the Old Testament 
makes it altogether probable that my interpretation of these 
passages is the true one. Our Confession gives us a safe rule 
to follow in such cases of apparent difference: 

“ The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture it¬ 
self ; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense 
of any Scripture (which is not manifold but one), it may be searched 
and known by other places that speak more clearly ” (I. 9). 

The prosecution put this rule in their Charge, but they made 
no use of it in their argument. I insist upon its application to 
the matter in hand. 

You must follow this rule recognized by the prosecution in 
this Charge, or else go against the express requirements of the 


WHO WROTE ISAIAH? 


149 


Confession. This rule sustains me in my doctrine. The places 
that speak more clearly are those I have given you from the 
Old Testament. The passages where there is a question about 
“ the true and full sense” are these five passages from the New 
Testament quoted by the prosecution. You must interpret 
them by the clear passages of the Old Testament. Therefore 
you should acquit me and pronounce the prosecution in error. 

Other Anonymous Prophecies in Isaiah 

I might rest my case here, were it not that I said that Isaiah 
did not write half the book that bears his name. 

I have thus far shown that Isaiah did not write thirty-one 
chapters of the sixty-six in the book of Isaiah. It is necessary, 
therefore, that I should consider the remaining thirty-five chap¬ 
ters in order to establish my position. I am here confronted 
with no evidence presented by the prosecution. I have only 
to present the positive arguments. 

(1) Is. xxiv.-xxvii. is one of the finest pieces of poetry in the 
Old Testament. It is composed of twelve strophes in the 
hexameter movement, and is remarkable for its alliteration, 
rhyme, and play upon words; in all these respects transcending 
every other piece of Hebrew poetry. Its doctrines of the divine 
judgment, of the evil hngel princes and their imprisonment in 
Sheol, and of the heavenly elders, its prediction of the abolition 
of death and sorrow, and of the resurrection of Israel, the 
corpse of Yahweh, and the wide extent of the divine judgment, 
have nothing to correspond with them in Isaiah; they pre¬ 
suppose Ezekiel and are in some respects nearer to the Apoca¬ 
lypse of Daniel than to any other writing in the Old Testament. 

(2) Is. xxxiv., xxxv.: resembles Is. xl.-lxvi. It seems to be 
an earlier piece of the same author, the prelude and outline of 
that great composition. 

(3) Is. xiii., xiv. 23, is a beautiful pentameter poem, predict¬ 
ing the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and the judgment 
of the world. It is the prelude to the judgment upon Babylon 
by Cyrus, chaps, xl.-xlviii., and is possibly one of the earlier 
predictions referred to therein. It is true that it bears the title, 
“The message to Babylon which Isaiah, the son of Amoz, did 


150 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


see,” but the very form of expression shows that this title does 
not come from Isaiah, but from the compiler of this collection, 
who wrongly attributes it to Isaiah, as internal evidence shows. 
Like the titles of the Psalms it is not entitled to the attribute of 
inspiration. 

This prediction was placed at the beginning of Isaiah’s col¬ 
lection of messages against the surrounding nations, fourteen 
in number, xiv. 24-xxiii., which are probably Isaiah’s. There 
is also a group of woes upon Israel and Judah, chaps, xxviii.- 
xxxiii., which may be attributed to Isaiah also. The great col¬ 
lection of Isaiah’s prophecies is, however, i.-xi., relating to 
divine judgments upon Judah and Israel. There were two 
editings of this group by Isaiah or his disciples. Chaps, ii.-v. 
were first published, and then the larger collection, chaps, vi.-xi., 
was appended and chap. i. was made the introduction to the 
whole. Chap. xii. is an exilic or post-exilic hymn, as Dr. Fran¬ 
cis Brown has shown, resembling the little hymns in the Great 
Unknown. It was doubtless appended to the first collection by 
the post-exilic final editor, who thus arranged the book of Isaiah 
in a pentateuch of Prophecy as follows: 

(1) Chaps, i.-xi., Isaiah’s, to which the exilic hymn, chap, 
xii., was added. 

(2) Chaps, xiii., xiv. 23, an exilic apocalypse, was prefixed to 
a collection of fourteen messages of Isaiah xiv. 24-xxiii., and the 
exilic apocalypse, xxiv.-xxvii., was given as the conclusion of 
this section. 

(3) Chaps, xxviii.-xxxiii., a collection of woes by Isaiah, 
to which was joined as an appendix an exilic apocalypse in 
chaps, xxxiv., xxxv. 

(4) The exilic historic section, xxxvi.-xxxix. 

(5) The prophecy of the Great Unknown, xl.-lxvi. 

Thus of the sixty-six chapters we may attribute to Isaiah not 
more than twenty-seven chapters. Thirty-nine chapters, mak¬ 
ing the larger half of the book, were not written by him, as all 
critics acknowledge. My thesis is therefore proven, that Isaiah 
did not write half of the book that bears his name. 

Let me sum up my arguments on the Charges IV. and V. 

(1) There is no lawful bridge by which these specifications, 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


151 


“ that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch and that Isaiah 
is not the author of half of the book that bears his name,” can 
be brought under the Charges. Therefore there is no relevancy 
in the specifications—they cannot be accounted as valid. 

(2) The Westminster Confession of Faith nowhere states 
that Moses wrote the Pentateuch or that Isaiah wrote the whole 
of the book that bears his name. Therefore there can be no 
lawful case against me in the Presbyterian Church. 

(3) The testimony of Holy Scripture in the passages adduced 
does not show that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and that Isaiah 
wrote the book that bears his name. Therefore my statements 
are not in conflrct with Holy Scripture and there is no valid case 
against me on the ground of Holy Scripture. 

(4) Holy Scripture makes it evident that Moses did not write 
the Pentateuch and that Isaiah did not write half of the book 
that bears his name. Therefore my statements are true and the 
prosecution are in conflict with Holy Scripture. 

In the fear of God and in the light of the evidence you 
should decide. You cannot decide on the basis of your opinions 
and prejudices, without violating the laws of the Church and 
the law of God. 


VIII 

PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 

Charge VI.: 

“ The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 
charges the Kev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., being a Minister of 
the said Church and a member of the Presbytery of Hew York, 
with teaching that Sanctification is not complete at death, 
which is contrary to the essential doctrine* of Holy Scripture and 
of the Standards of the said Church that the souls of believers 
are at their death at once made perfect in holiness.” 

This Charge states (1) that it is an essential doctrine of Holy 
Scripture and of the Standards “ that the souls of believers are 
at their death at once made perfect in holiness.” But no proof 
is offered for this essential doctrine under the charge. We 
shall consider whether there is any proof for it whatever in 



152 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

Holy Scripture and the Standards. (2) The Charge states that 
Dr. Briggs teaches “that Sanctification is not complete at 
death.” This I may accept as a fairly good statement of my 
doctrine. (3) The Charge states that my doctrine is contrary 
to the essential doctrine of Holy Scripture and of the Standards. 
This statement we shall have to consider. But let me warn the 
court again that they must confine themselves to the question 
at issue. They have no right to condemn me on account of 
any other doctrines taught in the citations from my Inaugural, 
except the doctrine attributed to me in the Charge, namely, 
“that Sanctification is not complete at death.” My doctrine 
is clearly stated in the following words of the Inaugural cited 
by the prosecution as part of their specification: 

“There is no authority in the Scriptures, or in the creeds of Christen¬ 
dom, for the doctrine of immediate sanctification at death. The only 
sanctification known to experience, to Christian orthodoxy, and to the 
Bible, is progressive sanctification. Progressive sanctification after death 
is the doctrine of the Bible and the Church. ” 

I.—The Doctrine of the Westminster Standards 

It is claimed by the adversaries that this statement is against 
the Westminster Standards, which teach “ that the souls of be¬ 
lievers are at their death at once made perfect in holiness.” 
They cite from the Confession, chapter xxxii. (1), from the 
Larger Catechism, Ques. 86, and from the Shorter Catechism, 
Ques. 37. But Dr. Birch in his argument made no use what¬ 
ever of these passages from our Standards; and Mr. McCook 
used only one of them, Question 27 of the Shorter Catechism, 
in order to state that it teaches a doctrine directly contrary to 
my doctrine. But that was a mere assertion without proof, 
and no proposal was made to show that that doctrine is an es¬ 
sential doctrine of the Standards. Therefore I ask that you 
decide in accordance with law and usage in courts of justice 
and throw out the Charge which is so destitute of proof. But 
inasmuch as I desire that you should know what is the precise 
relation of my doctrine to the Westminster Standards, I shall 
consider these passages. (1) It is true that it is taught in 
the Shorter Catechism that “the souls of believers are at their 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 153 

death made perfect in holiness ” (37); but it is not said that 
at their death believers are immediately, in a moment of time, 
“ ctt once ” by divine transformation, made perfect in holiness. 
I can say at their death made “ perfect in holiness ” because I 
believe that the souls of believers at death enter the Mid¬ 
dle State, in which state they are made perfect in holiness 
by progressive sanctification. “ At their death ” does not nec¬ 
essarily imply “ in the very moment of the transition from life 
to death,” or in the exact second of time after the spirit has 
departed from the body; but “ at their death ” is in antithesis 
with “in this life,” and means nothing more than “in the state 
of death.” “Made perfect in holiness” does not necessarily 
imply “ that the sanctification of the soul is instantaneously, in 
the moment of time after it leaves the body, perfected and com¬ 
pleted ; ” but it is consistent with the belief that the soul is made 
perfect in holiness in the state of death. The Larger Cate¬ 
chism teaches that— 

“ The communion in glory with Christ, which the members of the in¬ 
visible church enjoy immediately after death, is in that their souls are 
then made perfect in holiness, and received into the highest heavens, 
where they behold the face of God in light and glory; waiting for the 
full redemption of their bodies ” (86). 

It is not said that their souls are made immediately perfect 
in holiness after death any more than it is said immediately 
received into the highest heavens. This question speaks of the 
communion in glory with Christ which the members of the 
invisible church enjoy immediately after death. Is that com¬ 
munion limited to the moment of time at death? Does it not 
rather continue during the whole time in that state, beginning 
immediately after death? Immediately after death in this 
passage means the whole state which begins immediately after 
death, during which the communion is enjoyed, as we might 
infer also from the clause “ waiting for the full redemption of 
their bodies.” What therefore is affirmed as happening imme¬ 
diately after death is affirmed as happening during that state of 
communion and waiting which begins immediately after death; 
and not in the moment of time that begins that state. The four 
affirmations are not of successive chronological events, but of 


154 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


parallel events: (1) “made perfect in holiness,”(2) “received 
into the highest heavens,” (3) “behold the face of God in light 
and glory,” (4) “waiting for the full redemption of their 
bodies;” all alike refer to the communion in glory with Christ, 
which continues throughout this entire state from death to the 
resurrection. There is nothing in the text or the context of 
this passage, or in the proof texts of the Confession cited to 
sustain it, to indicate that “ made perfect in holiness” applies 
only to the moment of time when the Middle State begins, or 
that it confines the communion with Christ in the long period 
of the state which follows the moment immediately after 
death, to the single thing “ waiting for the full redemption of 
their bodies.” 

This interpretation of the phrase “ immediately after death” 
is made probable when we put Question 86 in its context in the 
midst of the group of Questions 82-90. Question 82 asks: 

“ What is the communion in glory, which the members of the invisible 
church have with Christ?” The answer is: “The communion in glory, 
which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is in this 
life, immediately after death, and at last perfected at the resurrection 
and day of judgment.” 

Here then are three states in which this communion with 
Christ is enjoyed: (1) this life; (2) immediately after death; (3) 
at the resurrection and day of judgment. The communion 
with Christ is evidently not limited to the point of time imme¬ 
diately after death, but to the state beginning immediately 
after death and extending up to the day of judgment; for “ in 
this life” clearly" refers not to any single moment in this life, 
but to the whole Christian state in this life from the moment in 
which Christian life begins in regeneration until the soul departs 
from the body at death. So “ at the resurrection and day of 
judgment” is not limited to a moment of time when the resur¬ 
rection and the judgment may take place; but refers to the 
final state of communion with Christ beginning with resurrec¬ 
tion and judgment but extending through all eternity. Accord¬ 
ingly, “ immediately after death,” which intervenes between this 
life and “at the resurrection and day of judgment,” is not 
limited to the moment of the soul’s departure into the Middle 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


155 


State, but comprehends the communion with Christ which is 
the experience of believers from the moment of death till the 
day of resurrection. The scope of the question makes this cer¬ 
tain. Observe the question is: “ What is the communion in 
glory, which the members of the invisible church have with 
Christ?” It is extremely improbable that the Westminster 
divines would limit that communion in the future state to 
two points of time—first, the moment of death, and second, 
the moment of resurrection, and leave entirely out of view the 
millenniums of the Middle State and the eternities of the 
Ultimate State. 

In accordance with this general statement of Question 82, 
which we have thus analyzed, there follow separate questions 
as to each one of these states: 

(83) “ What is the communion in glory with Christ, which 
the members of the invisible church enjoy in this life?” 

(86) “ What is the communion in glory with Christ, which the 
members of the invisible church enjoy immediately after death?” 

(90) “What shall be done to the righteous at the day of 
judgment?” 

The “ immediately after death” of the specific question has 
the same meaning as the “immediately after death” of the 
general question; and the meaning of the “ immediately after 
death” of the answer must be the same, all therefore referring 
to the state immediately after death, and not to the point of 
time at death. Therefore there is no proof that the clause 
“ then made perfect in holiness” is to be limited to the very 
moment of death. 

Furthermore, there are several expressions in these questions 
and answers which do not agree with the doctrine of immediate 
and perfect sanctification in the moment of death. The state¬ 
ment “ at last perfected at the resurrection and day of judg¬ 
ment ” indicates that the glory of the Middle State is interme¬ 
diate glory and not perfected glory. The statement “ waiting 
for the full redemption of their bodies ” shows that the redemp¬ 
tion was not yet full nor yet perfected at death, that it could 
not be full, could not be perfected till the day of judgment. 
And Question 90 tells us that the righteous will be openly 
acknowledged and acquitted at “the day of judgment,” not 


156 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

before; that they “ shall be received into heaven, where they shall 
be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery; filled with 
inconceivable joys; made perfectly holy and happy both in 
body and soul, in the company of innumerable saints and angels, 
but especially in the immediate vision and fruition of God the 
Father, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, to all 
eternity. And this is the perfect and full communion, which 
the members of the invisible church shall enjoy with Christ in 
glory, at the resurrection and day of judgment.” 

Such expressions as these with reference to the day of judg¬ 
ment indicate that “the perfect and full communion with 
Christ in glory ” is not enjoyed until that time; that then, first, 
believers will “be openly acknowledged and acquitted;” that 
not till then shall they “ be fully and forever freed from all sin;” 
that not till then shall they “be made perfectly holy.” 

It is evident, therefore, from these statements of our Standards, 
that perfect holiness,perfect redemption, perfect communion with 
Christ in glory, cannot be enjoyed until the decisions of the day 
of judgment. How can any one be perfectly sanctified who has 
not attained “ perfect and full communion with Christ in glory,” 
who has not yet been “openly acknowledged and acquitted,” 
and who still has to look forward to the resurrection when for 
the first he will be “ fully and forever freed from all sin ” and 
made “perfectly holy and happy both in body and soul”? 
Those who teach immediate sanctification at death are in 
irresistible conflict with these statements of the Confession; 
whereas those who teach progressive sanctification after death 
and regard the state immediately after death as a state during 
which men are made perfect in holiness, which progress in per¬ 
fection reaches its end at the day of judgment, reconcile all 
these statements of the Larger Catechism into a higher unity, 
where there is complete and perfect harmony. 

I am well aware that these statements are obscure and capable 
of such interpretation as to involve them in many inconsisten¬ 
cies. I do not claim that the Westminster divines were 
altogether clear themselves as to these difficult questions of 
eschatology. I am also aware that many citations can be made 
from their writings which teach immediate sanctification at 
death. I have doubtless seen the most, if not all such extracts 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 157 

as can be adduced. But whatever the opinions of any or all of 
them were on this subject, when they constructed the careful 
statements of our Standards, they were obliged to keep close to 
the doctrines of Holy Scripture, and thus it is that their state¬ 
ments, though indefinite and obscure, in no wise come in conflict 
with the doctrine of progressive sanctification after death, and 
in no wise teach the error of immediate sanctification at death. 
The Westminster divines shared the common fault of the Prot¬ 
estantism of the 16th and 17th centuries in that having 
thrown aside the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and 
having neglected to revive the ancient Catholic doctrine of the 
Middle State, they left the Middle State between death and the 
resurrection in their definitions, but did not carefully distin¬ 
guish it from the Ultimate State. Accordingly in their creeds, 
neglecting to make important distinctions and yet adhering 
closely to Scripture, they did not fall into statements of error; 
but in their writings failing to observe the distinction made in 
Holy Scripture between the Abaddon of the Middle State and 
the Gehenna of the Ultimate State, and between the heaven of 
the Middle State and the heaven of the Final State, they said 
many things of the one that belong properly to the other. 
When therefore, in accord with many modern Protestant theo¬ 
logians, I advance into this unexplored territory of the Middle 
State and go beyond the Westminster Confession in my state¬ 
ments and definitions, follow in the lines drawn by the ancient 
Church and gather together all the teachings of Holy Scripture, 
and so more carefully distinguish between the Middle State and 
the Ultimate State, I do not violate the statements of the Con¬ 
fession; I go into regions of liberty and extra-confessional 
dogma, and in those regions pursue the scientific, historical, and 
Biblical methods of investigation and statement. 

(2) If any one insists upon rejecting the proof that has been 
given with regard to the proper interpretation of the phrase 
“made perfect in holiness,” his attention is invited to the West¬ 
minster doctrine of sanctification and he is asked, if there be 
an inconsistency between the two chapters, which is the more 
important chapter of the Confession, the one giving the general 
doctrine of progressive sanctification or the one giving the 
specific doctrine of immediate sanctification at death under the 


158 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


head of the doctrine of the Middle State? The chapter on sanc¬ 
tification knows no other sanctification than progressive sanc¬ 
tification. Listen to this doctrine: 

“ I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart 
and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and per¬ 
sonally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his word 
and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is 
destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and 
mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all 
saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man 
shall see the Lord. 

“II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect 
in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every 
part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting 
against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. 

“III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time 
may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from 
the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome: and 
so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” 
(Chap. XIII.). 

This chapter is one of the choicest productions of the West¬ 
minster divines. It sets forth truly and accurately the doctrine 
of Holy Scripture. If the Presbyterian Church had bound this 
13th chapter on their heart instead of the 3d chapter, and had 
made the Scriptural doctrine of sanctification their article of 
the standing and falling Church, rather than the scholastic 
dogma of reprobation, what a glorious history they might have 
had in the last two centuries! There would have been no need 
of the agonies of the present revision movement. It seems 
sometimes as if those who insist upon immediate sanctification 
at death were using the term sanctification in a different sense 
from the Westminster Standards. Sanctification is sometimes 
used in the Scriptures and also in theological literature and 
debate, for that cleansing from sin which takes place in the laver 
of regeneration; and again for that induction into a higher 
Christian life which is effected by the power of the Holy 
Spirit upon the souls of men at certain crises of their history. 
I do not question that men are sanctified in the sense that they 
are washed in the laver of regeneration clean from every cor¬ 
ruption, taint, and defilement of sin. I do not doubt that the 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


159 


fountain which flows from the Redeemer’s side cleanseth from 
all sin in the hour of death as in any hour of life, when the 
sinner opens his heart in faith and repentance to the saving 
love of Jesus. So again I do not question the higher life that 
men may attain in this world, when throwing aside every weight 
of besetting sin, tearing away all the bands of evil habits and 
associations, dissolving every other tie which might restrain 
them from God and duty, they consecrate themselves to the 
service of the Redeemer and with fresh courage strain every 
nerve of holy resolution, striving for the love of Christ in the 
passion of self-sacrificing devotion to the Master’s service. 
The divine Spirit lifts up such consecrated ones to a higher 
plane of religious experience and fills their souls with joy and 
holy endeavor. I firmly believe that such transformations, 
long prepared by the Spirit’s secret workings upon the soul, 
may take place immediately in a moment of time, in a happy 
hour which seems like a second birth, a second resurrection. 
It is the shooting of the plant of grace above the ground after 
the long season of sowing and germination in the secret 
recesses of the heart. It is the springing forth of the blossom 
in the spring-time after a long winter’s secret preparation. 
That there will be such a transformation at death, the spring¬ 
time of a new life, I do not doubt. I firmly believe that then 
there will be a transformation greater than any that is possible 
in this life. You may call this sanctification if you will, you 
may say that this is “being made perfect in holiness,” if that is 
your meaning; but if you do you have a very meagre and inade¬ 
quate conception of the sanctification taught in the Holy Scrip¬ 
ture and in the Westminster Confession. Christian sanctifica¬ 
tion is vastly higher, grander, and more glorious than this. Ac¬ 
cording to the Westminster Confession, it is not merely cleans¬ 
ing from sin and rising to a higher grade of Christian life and ex¬ 
perience, “it is being more and more strengthened in all saving 
graces, to the practice of true holiness.” How can there be the 
practice of true holiness except in time of duration? How can 
there be the practice of true holiness without holy conduct? 
How can there be holy conduct without Christian activity? 
How can there be Christian activity without doing and work¬ 
ing and serving Christ and the brethren? The practice of 


160 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


true holiness, therefore, must follow the transformation that 
takes place at death—it cannot be a part of it. It is conceivable 
that believers at their death may be immediately so strengthened 
in all saving graces as to be perfectly endowed for the practice of 
true holiness, but it is inconceivable that the practice itself could 
be immediately imparted. The practice of true holiness cannot 
be given by God; it must be the exercise and work of man, 
under the influence of the divine Spirit, and must follow any 
influence of sanctification at death. But inasmuch as the 
practice is an essential part of the sanctification and there cap 
be no completeness of sanctification, no perfection in holiness 
without the practice of true holiness, the completion of sancti¬ 
fication at the moment of death is impossible. 

The Westminster Confession also teaches that “this sanctifi¬ 
cation is throughout in the whole man.” The text cited in 
proof of the position is: 

“And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I 
pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved 
blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I. Thess. 
v. 23). It is manifest that according to this text and this 
statement of the Confession, sanctification embraces the body 
as well as the soul. Sanctification cannot be completed with¬ 
out the body. It is clearly taught in the Confession, XXXII., 
that believers are waiting in the Middle State “ until the day 
of judgment for the full redemption of their bodies.” So the 
Larger Catechism states that then at the day of judgment “they 
shall be fully and forever freed from all sin and misery, filled 
with inconceivable joys, made perfectly holy and happy both 
in body and soul.” Wherefore according to the Westminster 
Standards, the full redemption of their bodies, the sanctification 
of their bodies, “made perfectly holy in body and soul,” does 
not take place until the day of judgment. Therefore sanctifi¬ 
cation is not throughout in the whole man until the day of 
judgment. Man cannot, therefore, be immediately and com¬ 
pletely sanctified at death. That measure of sanctification 
which he r3cei/3S at death is intermediate between the sancti¬ 
fication in this life and the complete sanctification at the day of 
judgment. It is furthermore evident that the apostle, in the 
text cited, is praying, not that God would sanctify the Thessalo- 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


161 


nians wholly at death, or present them blameless at the hour of 
death, but “unto the coming of our Lord Jesus,” that is, the 
second advent; and what is that but the day of the resurrection 
of the body and the final judgment? 

If therefore, by any confusion of mind, the Westminster 
divines have taught in Chapter XXXII., and the corresponding 
questions and answers of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, 
the doctrine of immediate sanctification at death, they have 
thereby through inadvertence taught a doctrine which is irrec¬ 
oncilable with and contrary to and in conflict with their doc¬ 
trine of sanctification and their doctrine of the resurrection of 
the body, and their doctrine of the day of judgment. Can any 
doubt, in such a case, which passage must give way? Shall 
we give up three doctrines of greatest importance for the sake 
of one doctrine of lesser importance? 

(3) I freely grant that the most natural interpretation of the 
phrases of the Westminster Standards, “at their death made 
perfect in holiness,” or “immediately after death,” is in favor 
of the doctrine of immediate sanctification at death, though I 
think that the contexts of the Larger Catechism and the Con¬ 
fession disprove that interpretation. But granting that my in¬ 
terpretation is wrong, the question arises whether the doctrine 
of immediate sanctification at death is an essential doctrine of 
the Westminster Confession. Can you regard the doctrine as 
essential to the Westminster system of doctrine? It is a doc¬ 
trine in the difficult field of eschatology, where there must 
be liberty for investigation, statement, and debate, until the 
Church has matured its Christian experience and defined more 
closely its faith. 

Is the Presbytery ready to take the position that the dogma 
of immediate sanctification at death is an essential doctrine of 
the Presbyterian Church, so that no man. can become a Presby¬ 
terian minister who does not hold it? If so, you stretch and 
strain the line of cardinal and essential doctrines to an extent 
that will be destructive of the peace and prosperity of the 
Church. I doubt whether the superior courts will sustain you 
in such a position, and if they should do this wrong to the 
Church of God, the Christian world will regard them as 
breaking the bonds of catholicity. 

11 


162 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

II.—The Doctrine of Holy Scripture 

I shall now endeavor to show you that the doctrine of imme¬ 
diate sanctification at death is against the Holy Scriptures. 
Nowhere in Scripture is death the crisis for which men are to 
prepare themselves. It is always the day of judgment, the 
advent day, the resurrection day, which is the goal of hope or 
of fear, of aspiration or of dread, of harvest or of doom. 

A large number of the passages which were cited in the origi¬ 
nal Charge have nothing to do with the matter in hand. All 
of these have been abandoned in the present Charge but two. 
I would limit myself to these two were it not that under the 
clause with which they close their Charges, they claim the 
right and you have granted them the right to offer in evidence 
the “ whole of the Holy Scriptures,” and they have brought many 
of them in again in argument against me. I shall therefore 
test them all. 

(1) Let us first consider the passages which have nothing to 
do with the future life as such, (a) Jesus is “the Lamb of 
God which taketh away the sin of the world ” (John i. 29); but 
this fact is not inconsistent with progressive sanctification in 
this life. How then can it be inconsistent with progressive 
sanctification in the Middle State? ( b ) It may be often said of 
us as Jesus said to Peter in Gethsemane, “The Spirit indeed is 
willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. xxvi. 41). But this 
does not imply the Manichsean heresy that the seat of sin is in 
the flesh and that therefore the disembodied spirit will be per¬ 
fect. Such a doctrine is far from the thought of these words of 
Jesus, (c) The prayer of the apostle for the Ephesians, “ that 
he would grant you according to the riches of his glory, that 
ye may be strengthened with power through the Spirit in the 
inward man” (Eph. iii. 16), as the context shows implies pro¬ 
gressive sanctification in this life, and therefore would imply that 
this progressive sanctification would be continued until perfect 
sanctification has been reached. There is nothing in text or con¬ 
text to suggest that this perfect sanctification is reached in the 
moment of death. 

(2) We shall next consider the passages cited by the prosecu¬ 
tion which relate to the second advent and the resurrection day 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 163 

and which have nothing to do with the Middle State, (a) The 
awards to him that overcometh (Rev. iii. 5) are the awards of 
the judgment day. ( b ) The multitudes clothed in white robes 
and with victor’s palms (Rev. vii. 8-14) are the redeemed of 
the last great day. (c) The clothing of the bride in the right¬ 
eousness of the saints (Rev. xix. 8) is at the bridal of the Mes¬ 
siah. ( d ) The mysterious change in a moment of time (I. Cor. 
xv. 51, 52) is the resurrection change. ( e) The rapture of the 
saints to be forever with the Lord (I. Thess. iv. 16, 17) is the 
rapture of the second advent. None of these passages have 
anything to do with the doctrine of the Middle State, except so 
far as they show that as death is the entrance into the Middle 
State, the resurrection, second advent, and the day of judgment 
are the exit from the Middle State upon the Ultimate State. 

(3) We shall now consider two passages at greater length. 
(«) The advice of Paul to Timothy (I. Tim. iv. 8), “Exercise 
thyself unto godliness: for bodily exercise is profitable for a lit¬ 
tle ; but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of 
the life which now is, and of that which is to come,” is an 
advice to progressive sanctification without any hint that sanc¬ 
tification stops at death. If he could say, “Exercise thyself 
unto godliness, for it is profitable, having promise of the life 
which now is, and also the life which is to come,” does this imply 
that the exercise unto godliness was to be limited to this life? 
If the exercise unto godliness was not to cease during “the life 
which now is,” even after its profit and promise were realized in 
part, why should it cease in “the life which is to come,” when 
its profit and promise were in process of realization there? The 
exhortation is rather to go on in the exercise of godliness in 
“the life which now is,” and also in “the life which is to come,” 
and win by your exercise its profitableness and its promise in 
both lives. ( b ) The rest granted to the blessed dead (Rev. xiv. 
13) doubtless refers to the Middle State—but it teaches simply 
rest from labor, the enjoyment of the fruits of the works which 
follow them, and blessedness; it does not teach that these 
blessed dead cease from the practice of true holiness, abandon 
the exercise unto godliness, leave off Christian ministry, and no 
longer grow in knowledge, in grace, and in sanctification, (c) 
The Middle State is graphically presented to us by our Lord 


164 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


in the story of Dives and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 22-26). This is 
the Middle State during the old dispensation before the descent 
of Jesus into the abode of the dead and His resurrection to the 
heights of heaven. I shall not raise the question whether Jesus 
by His resurrection from Hades made essential changes in the 
Middle State or not. It is sufficient for my purpose here to call 
your attention to the fact that it is not said that the sanctifica¬ 
tion of Lazarus was completed the moment when angel hands 
placed him in Abraham’s bosom. It rather favors the continu¬ 
ation of the work of sanctification, because he there enjoyed 
communion with Abraham. Was there no pious instruction 
for him to receive, no holy example for him to follow, no holy 
gratitude to express, no holy service to render, no holy conduct 
for this poor beggar to practise in Abraham’s bosom? Did he 
learn no lessons of the justice of Grod, of the evil of sin, of the 
delights of righteousness and of holy sanctification in the con¬ 
versation with Dives? How can we conceive of such an 
experience without growth in holiness on the part of the 
redeemed beggar? John Wesley uses these wise words on this 
passage: 

“ Can we reasonably doubt but that those who are now in Paradise in 
Abraham’s bosom, all those holy souls who have been discharged from 
the body from the beginning of the world unto this day, will be contin¬ 
ually ripening for heaven, will be perpetually holier and happier, till 
they are received into the kingdom prepared for them from the founda¬ 
tion of the world V (“Works,” CXXVI., Sermon on Faith). 

(4) Paul expresses the desire to depart from this earthly 
life into the presence of Christ in heaven: 

“For we know that if the earthly house of our‘tabernacle be dissolved, 
we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal, in 
the heavens. For verily in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon 
with our habitation which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed 
we shall not be found naked. For indeed we that are in this tabernacle 
do groan, being burdened ; not for that we would be unclothed, but that 
we would be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of 
life. Now he that hath wrought us for this very thing is God, who gave 
unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Being therefore always of good courage, 
and knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent 
from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight) ; we are of good 
courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


165 


be at home with the Lord. Wherefore also we make it our aim, whether 
at home or absent, to be well-pleasing unto him. For we must all be made 
manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive 
the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it 
be good or bad” (II. Cor. v. 1-10). 

* 

In this passage there is contrast between life in the body and 
life apart from the body, life in this world away from the Mes¬ 
siah and life in the heaven of the Middle State with the Mes¬ 
siah, between the earthly body and the heavenly body. The 
apostle does not leap in thought over the Middle State to the 
Ultimate State, because he has in mind the departure from the 
body in order to be in the heavenly region of the Middle State. 
He is not thinking of the advent of Christ while he remained 
in the body, or of a resurrection of the body, but of his going 
away from the body to the presence of Christ, just as in the 
epistle to the Philippians he longs to depart and be with Christ, 
which was much better for him than life in this world (i. 23). 
He expresses the confidence that when he dies he will depart to 
the heaven of the Middle State to be with Christ, to receive a 
heavenly body suitable for his abode there. That this is the 
mind of the apostle is clear from the subsequent context. He 
aims to be well-pleasing to the Messiah whether at home with 
Him in the heavenly state or absent from Him in this world, 
because he sees at the end of the Middle State as well as at the 
end of the course of this world the judgment-seat of the Mes¬ 
siah, before which everything will be made manifest for final 
decision. A similar doctrine is taught in Rom. xiv. 7-12: 

“For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself. For 
whether we live, we live unto the Lord: or whether we die, we die unto 
the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. For to 
this end Christ died, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the 
dead and the living. But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or 
thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all 
stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, As I live, 
saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall con¬ 
fess to God. So then each one of us shall give account of himself to 
God.” 

The goal of the apostle’s striving, therefore, is to be well¬ 
pleasing to Christ, when he is made manifest with all his works 
before the judgment-seat at the day of judgment; and therefore 


166 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


he has this one aim, whether at home with Christ after death 
in the Middle State, or absent from Him in this world, to be 
well-pleasing to Him. Aiming to please Christ in the Middle 
State in order to be accepted in the day of judgment, what else 
can it be but pursuing the path of Christian sanctification? 
How else could the apostle hope to persevere in that aim 
through all the ages of the Middle State, unless the divine Spirit 
of Christ was carrying on and perfecting the work of sanctifica¬ 
tion in him in the Middle State as well as in this life? 

(5) The apostle John tells us: 

“ Beloved, now are we the childr6n of God, and it is not yet made 
manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, 
we shall be like him ; for we shall see him even as he is. And every one 
that hath this hope set on him purifietli himself, even as he is pure ” 
(I. John iii. 2, 3). 

“ Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth 
in him : and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. In this the 
children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever 
doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that lovetli not his 
brother” (I. John iii. 9, 10). 

The prosecution omit verse 3, a passage that is relevant to 
verse 2; but give verses 9 and 10, which have no manner of 
relevancy to the matter in hand; for the doctrine that “ whoso¬ 
ever is begotten of God doeth no sin” is a doctrine that applies 
no more to the Middle State after death than it does to the life 
prior to death. The apostle evidently has in mind this life in 
these verses and not the future state. It is perfectly evident, 
moreover, that the manifestation of “ what we shall be,” of verse 
2, and “he shall be manifested,” of verse 3, both refer to the 
second advent of our Lord, and not to any manifestation of 
Him to us or of us to others in the Middle State. This passage 
looks forward to the second advent of Christ with earnest hope. 
This hope, set on the appearing of the pure Christ, is a purify¬ 
ing hope, a sanctifying hope. But the goal of the hope is 
when Christ shall be manifested. Then first the apostle will 
be like Him; will be as pure as He is pure. This postpone¬ 
ment of the being like Christ, pure as Christ is pure, till the 
second advent, makes it evident that there can be no completion 
of the work of sanctification until the second advent, or in 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


167 


other words that the effort to purify one’s self “even as he is 
pure” continueth in the Middle State just as in this life until 
the goal of every effort is reached at the manifestation of the 
pure and perfect Christ in glory. The doctrine is plain: Paul 
teaches that his one aim is to be well-pleasing to Christ, at the 
day of judgment. That was to be his aim in the Middle State 
as well as in this world. John teaches that his one hope was 
to be pure like Christ when He should be manifested at the 
second advent, and with this hope he purifieth himself until 
the appearing of Christ, when first he will see Him in his real 
purity and become wholly like Him in purity. 

(6) Paul represents that Christ so loved the Church as to give 
Himself up for it; “ that he might sanctify it, having cleansed 
it by the washing of water with the word, that he might 
present the Church to himself a glorious church, not having 
spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy 
and without blemish” (Eph. v. 26, 27). The glorification of 
the Church is the ideal aim of Christ. The accomplishment of 
this glorification is first at the bridal of the Lamb. This bridal 
takes place not at the death of the believer, but at the second 
advent of the bridegroom. The work of Christ until the second 
advent is summed up in the work of “ sanctifying and cleansing 
the church by the washing of water with the word. ” Is the work 
of Christ for the Church confined to the Church on earth? Has 
Christ no work to do for the Church of the Middle State? Does 
the work of preparation of the individual member of the 
Church cease at death and continue only for those who are left 
behind in this world? This passage teaches no such doctrine. 
The presumption is all the other way, that the work of Christ 
in perfecting His Church goes on for the whole Church, those 
remaining in this world and those who are in the Middle 
State, so that the whole Church, which is one organization 
embracing the living and the dead, may advance together 
toward its perfection. The doctrine of immediate sanctifica¬ 
tion at death dishonors Jesus Christ, for it confines His 
heavenly reign and mediation to the Church in this world. 

What practice have infants and imbeciles when they enter 
the Middle State? How far short in practice do the best of 
men fall? Are they no longer to have an opportunity for the 


168 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


practice of true holiness? Will there be no chance to learn 
what true holiness is? The Middle State must, from the very 
nature of the case, be a school of sanctification. 

It was a profound saying of Henry B. Smith that eschatol¬ 
ogy ought to be Christologized. It is greatly to be regretted 
that he did not turn his own attention to that theme and give 
us the fruit of his investigations. Dr. Schaff gave his atten¬ 
tion to this subject many years ago in his book on the Sin 
against the Holy Ghost, and has added not a few valuable hints 
in his later publications. 

Christ is the mediator between God and man in the exercise 
of His offices as prophet, priest, and king. Those who passed a 
few years in this world, and then went into the Middle State 
and have been there for centuries, have not passed beyond the 
need of His mediation. The interval between death and the 
judgment has its lessons and its training for them as well as 
for us. The prophetic office of Christ continues to those who 
are in the Middle State. After His own death He went to the 
abode of the departed spirits, and preached unto them his gos¬ 
pel. He ascended into heaven, taking His redeemed with Him. 
All those whom He has purchased with His blood ascend to Him 
to abide with Him. The redeemed robber is not the only one 
to whom He has something to say in the Middle State. All 
believers enter His school and are trained in the mysteries of 
His kingdom. Those mysteries are not cleared up by a flash 
of revelation; they are revealed as the redeemed are able to 
apprehend them and use them. It is improbable that Augus¬ 
tine, Calvin, and Luther will be found in the same class-room 
as the redeemed negro slave or the babe that has entered heaven 
to-day. The fathers and doctors of the Church will be the 
teachers of the dead, as they taught the living. 

Christ’s priestly office continues for them. They who enter 
the Middle State still need His blood and righteousness. Even 
if they commit no positive sin they do not reach positive per¬ 
fection until their sanctification has been completed in the 
attainment of the complete likeness of Christ. They need the 
robe of Christ’s righteousness until they have gained one of 
their own. He is still their surety, who has engaged with them 
and with God to present them perfect in the last great day. 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 1G9 

But, above all, Christ is a king in the Intermediate State. 
Here in this world His reign is only partial; there it is complete. 
Here His kingdom is interwoven with that kingdom of dark¬ 
ness. There it is apart from all evil and hindrance. His reign 
is entire over His saints, and they are being prepared by Him 
for the advent in which they will come with Him to reign over 
the world. The Church is chiefly in the Intermediate State. 
The Church on earth is only the vestibule of it. In this world 
we have learned to know in part the Messiah of the Cross; 
there in the Middle State the redeemed know the glory of the 
Messiah of the Throne. There the Church is in its purity and 
complete organization, as the bride of the Lamb. There Christ 
the head and His body the Church are in blessed unity. We 
have glimpses in the Apocalypse of the vast assemblies of the 
saints in heaven about the throne of the Lamb. And the 
epistle, of the Hebrews gives us a picture of their organized 
assembly on the heights of the heavenly Zion. It is important 
for the Church on earth to have a better apprehension of its 
relations with the Church in the Middle State. The Protestant 
branch of Christendom is weaker here than the Roman Cath¬ 
olic. It is high time to overcome this defect, for it is not 
merely agnosticism, it is sin against the mysteries of our relig¬ 
ion. The modern Church ought to return to the faith of the 
ancient Church, and believe in the “Communion of Saints.” 

We have developed the doctrine of the Middle State in the 
light of other established Christian doctrines. If the Church 
has rightly defined these, then it results from them that we 
must take that view of the Middle State that they suggest. If 
we are not prepared to do this we cast doubt upon the legiti¬ 
macy and competency of these doctrines. We confess them 
inadequate and insufficient. The Calvinistic system, with its 
principle that salvation is by the divine grace alone, and that 
this grace is ever prevenient, enables us to believe that the 
ordo salutis begins for all who are saved by the regeneration 
of the Holy Spirit in this life. This regeneration begets the 
seeds of a perfect Christian life. For some the ordo salutis 
makes no further advance in this life; for others it advances in 
different degrees and stages; but for all the redeemed the Mid¬ 
dle State is of vast importance as the state in which our 


170 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


redemption is taken up where it is left incomplete in this life 
and then carried on to its perfection. This view of the Mid¬ 
dle State gives it its true theological importance. It enables 
us to look forward with hope and joy for an entrance upon it. 
This life is an introduction to it. 

(7) The epistle to the Hebrews gives us a glimpse of the 
Church in the Middle State in these words: 

“ But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living 
God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels in gen¬ 
eral assembly and to the church of the first-born who are enrolled in 
heaven; and to God of all the Judge, and to the spirits of just men made 
perfect; and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood 
of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel ” (Heb. xii. 23-24). 

This passage is cited by the Westminster divines in proof of 
their phrase “made perfect in holiness.” And it is their only 
proof text. Let me call your attention again to the principle 
laid down in my preliminary objection, that even if the West¬ 
minster divines meant to teach the doctrine of immediate sanc¬ 
tification at death, yet if the passage of Holy Scripture on which 
they rely for proof teach a different doctrine, we are obliged by 
our subscription vows and by the doctrine of the Westminster 
Standards to follow Holy Scripture rather than the Confession, 
and you must judge by Scripture rather than by the Confes¬ 
sion. This is said as a guide to those who may not be convinced 
by the argument I have given you as to the doctrine taught in 
our Confession. I shall now endeavor to show you that this 
passage of Holy Scripture does not teach the doctrine of imme¬ 
diate sanctification at death, (a) Observe that we have in this 
passage a scene of great magnificence and glory, an assembly 
in the heavenly Jerusalem on the heavenly heights of Zion, of 
the God of all, Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, the 
general assembly of innumerable hosts of angels, and the 
church of the first-born, the spirits of just men made perfect. 
This festal assembly in the new Jerusalem is in antithesis to 
Sinai blazing and quaking with terrors. What is there in text 
or in context to suggest that this is a scene which immediately 
follows the death of every individual, or that immediately after 
death every believer is ushered into this festal assembly ? W hat 
is there in text or context to imply that these first-born from 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


171 


among men, these just men, these spirits perfected, embrace all 
believers that have departed this life? What is there in text 
or in context to imply that these perfected spirits attain their 
perfection at the precise moment of their death? The prosecu¬ 
tion will have to prove these three questionable propositions ere 
they can use this passage as an evidence that all believers are 
immediately sanctified in the moment of their departure from 
this life. They cannot give you any such proof. ( b ) Listen to 
the opinions of distinguished commentators on this passage. 
Calvin is one of the commentators who interpret “spirits 
of just men made perfect ” of the fulfilment or completion of 
their earthly life. If John Calvin, the father of Calvinists, the 
prince of interpreters among the Reformers, be correct in his 
interpretation, this passage has nothing whatever to do with the 
question whether sanctification is immediate or progressive after 
death. Calvin, however, gives his opinion on sanctification after 
death in his comment upon another passage, where he says: 

“As, however, the spirit is accustomed to speak in this manner in ref¬ 
erence to the last coming of Christ, it were better to extend the advance¬ 
ment of the grace of Christ to the resurrection of the flesh. For although 
those who have been freed from the mortal body do no longer contend 
with the lusts of the flesh, and are, as the expression is, beyond the reach 
of a single dart, yet there will be no absurdity in speaking of them as 
in the way of advancement, inasmuch as they have not yet reached the 
point at which they aspire, they do not yet enjoy the felicity and glory 
which they have hoped for, and, in fine, the day has not yet shone which 
is to discover the treasures which lie hid in hope. And in truth, when 
hope is treated of, our eyes must always be directed forward to a blessed 
resurrection as the grand object in view ” (Calvin on Phil., I., 6). 

(c) De Wette represents many commentators who think that 
these perfected spirits are the martyrs of the old dispensation, 
the theme of Heb. xi., of whom it is said: 

“ And these all, having had witness borne to them through their faith, re¬ 
ceived not the promise, God having provided some better thing concern¬ 
ing us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect ” (verses 
39, 40), 

There can be no doubt that our passage is based upon that 
passage, not only because of the term “perfected,” but also be¬ 
cause of the “ better thing ” which appears in both passages. 


172 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


The “better thing” of xi. 40, is referred to as that in which 
Hebrew and Greek martyrs share alike and at the same time; 
but what it is, is not distinctly stated. In our passage, however, 
it is the new covenant of Jesus, the Mediator, and His blood of 
sprinkling. Therefore we must extend the reference of the 
perfected spirits to the New Testament martyrs as well as to 
the Old Testament martyrs. The blood of sprinkling gives us 
the clew to the meaning of perfected here. As Weiss says, the 
entire usage of the Epistle refers this perfection to that attained 
through Christ and His sacrifice. We are not to think of moral 
perfection. Let us recall this usage for a few moments. There 
are four passages which teach that perfection was not through 
the Levitical priesthood or the sacrifices prescribed in the law 
(vii. 11, 19; ix. 9; x. 1). It is then said in antithesis but “by 
one offering he [Christ] hath perfected forever them that are 
sanctified” (x. 14). The “sanctified” here are, as the present 
participle shows, to use the words of Bishop Westcott, “all 
who from time to time realize progressively in fact that which 
has been potentially obtained for them.” The perfected spirits 
here are therefore those who have been perfected by the media¬ 
torial intercession and cleansing of the blood of Christ, and not 
those who have attained moral perfection, or who have com¬ 
pleted once for all their sanctification. It is possible that the 
prosecution understand by “ perfect in holiness ” just this cleans¬ 
ing by the blood of Christ and this equipment in the righteous¬ 
ness of Christ. If this be their meaning I shall not dispute 
their doctrine, so far as it goes. But the doctrine of sanctifica¬ 
tion which is in Holy Scripture and in the Westminster Con¬ 
fession is vastly higher than this. It is not merely cleansing 
from sin; it is the infusion of habits of holiness. It is not 
merely clothing in the righteousness of Christ; it is the habitual 
practice of holy conduct and the attainment of an indelible 
holy character. 

This festal assembly of angels and perfected spirits reminds 
us of several similar gatherings in the Apocalypse with which 
this passage seems to be in parallelism: 

“And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the 
souls of them that had been slain for the word of God, and for the testi¬ 
mony which they held : and they cried with a great voice, saying, How 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


173 


long, O Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our 
blood on them that dwell on the earth? And there was given them to 
each one a white robe ; and it was said unto them, that they should rest 
yet for a little time, until their fellow-servants also and their brethren, 
which should be killed even as they were, should be fulfilled ” (Rev. vi. 
9-11). 

“ And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on the mount Zion, and 
with him a hundred and forty and four thousand, having his name, and 
the name of his Father, written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice 
from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great 
thunder : and the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers harping 
with their harps: and they sing as it were a new song before the throne, 
and before the four living creatures and the elders: and no man could 
learn the song save the hundred and forty and four thousand, even they 
that had been purchased out of the earth. These are they which are not 
defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow 
the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among 
men, to be the first fruits unto God and unto the Lamb. And in their 
mouth was found no lie: they are without blemish ” (Rev. xiv. 1-5). 

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given 
unto them : and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the 
testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshipped not 
the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their fore¬ 
head and upon their hand; and they lived, and reigned with Christ a 
thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years 
should be finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is 
he that hath part in the first resurrection : over these the second death 
hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall 
reign with him a thousand years ” (Rev. xx. 4-6). 

In all these passages the martyrs of the martyr age of the 
Church are conceived as the first fruits, or the first-born, or par¬ 
takers of the first resurrection. They have been faithful and 
true in their testimony even unto death, they have kept them¬ 
selves undefiled and without blemish from contact with idol¬ 
atry, they are virgins as the bride of the Messiah and have not 
committed fornication with heathen gods, they are clad in the 
white robes of the priests of God, they live and reign with 
Christ in the heavenly Zion throughout the complete period of 
His mediatorial reign, they share the Redeemer’s blessedness 
and glory. But for all this it is not said that they cease to 
progress in sanctification, or that they have attained moral 
perfection, or that they have gained that Christlikeness and 
Godlikeness which is the final goal of redemption and which 


174 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


alone can come according to the apostle John, when the Messiah 
is manifested in glory at His second advent when the saints are 
manifested with Him. Then for the first time the rays of the 
snn of righteousness will shine through every saint and not 
a mote will be found in those sunbeams. 

Bishop Westcott gives a wise word here: 

“The perfection (reXelumg) of the individual Christian must in its 
fullest sense involve the perfection of the Christian society. The ‘per¬ 
fection’ which Christ gained for humanity in his person (ii. 10; v. 9 ; 
vii. 28; x. 1, 14) must be appropriated by every member of Christ. In 
part this end has been reached by the old saints in some degree, in virtue 
of Christ’s exaltation (c. xii. 23), but in part it waits for the final 
triumph of the Saviour, when all, that we sum up in confessing the truth 
of the resurrection of the body, is fulfilled. Primasius interprets the gift 
of the white robe in Apoc. vi. 11 (ad. 40 c.) of that endowment of love 
whereby the waiting souls gladly accept the postponement of their own 
consummation ” (382, 383). 

The invariable statement of the New Testament is that the 
second advent of Jesus Christ is the goal of sanctification. In 
addition to the passages already considered, I would refer to 
Rom. viii. 29, 30; I. Cor. i. 8; Eph. iv. 13-16; Phil. i. 6; I. Thess. 
iii. 13; v. 23; II. Peter iii. 13, 14. There is not a passage in 
the Bible that teaches either directly or indirectly immediate 
sanctification at death, or that the completion once and for all 
of the holy advancement of mankind is accomplished in a 
moment of time by a magical transformation in the dying hour. 
The Christian Church has always taught the doctrine of the 
Middle State between death and the resurrection; and of 
progress in the holy life after death, in that state. There have 
been those who taught the sleep of pious souls. Hr. Birch 
seems to hold that opinion, for he said in his argument: “ All 
dead Christians are asleep. When we are asleep we show the 
rest which consists in the inaction of mind and body ” (Stenog¬ 
rapher’s Report, p. 631). Others have held that departed spirits 
pass a dreamlike existence, with powers of memory of the life 
in this world, and of anticipation of the resurrection of the 
body and the judgment-seat of God; but without real activ¬ 
ity or change of condition throughout the entire period. But 
these opinions have always been rejected by the orthodox. 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


175 


Those passing into this Middle State pass into a higher and 
more active condition than their condition in this world. 
What then is the nature of this activity? There are several 
different opinions: (1) The Roman Catholic doctrine of Purga¬ 
tory teaches that those who enter the Middle State imperfect 
have their imperfections removed—( a) by purgatorial fires, 
which are of the nature of chastisement, discipline, and pen¬ 
ance for sin; ( b ) by the efficacy of prayers for the dead and 
the sacrifice of the altar. This doctrine of purgatorial fires and 
sacrifices for the dead I reject in common with the reformers 
and all Protestants. I am not surprised that the theologian 
who speaks in Mr. McCook prefers this doctrine of Purga¬ 
tory to my doctrine of Progressive Sanctification after death; 
for he will have magic of some kind, and if he cannot have a 
magical transformation without means, he will take a magical 
transformation by the use of means. He cannot understand 
growth in holiness, or the ethical progress of holy souls, or the 
transformation which takes place by the constant influence of 
the spirit of Christ upon the spirit of man. 

(2) The common traditional doctrine among Protestants is 
that believers are by a divine transformation immediately 
sanctified and judged by the private judgment at death and 
thereafter continue in a perfectly sanctified condition. This 
doctrine is set forth in its grossest form by Cotton Mather 
where he says: 

“Death like an hot and strong forge has run out of these holy souls, all 
the dross which all the ordinances and all the calamities formerly em¬ 
ployed upon them, had left remaining in them ” (“Hades Looked Into,” 
p. 12. 1717). 

This doctrine makes death itself the purgatory, and represents 
death as more potent for the salvation of men than Bible and 
Reason, Church and Sacrament all combined. This doctrine 
lies at the other extreme from the doctrine of Purgatory, and 
is equally erroneous. (3) The true doctrine, which is older 
than Purgatory and which has ever been taught by the soundest 
divines, is that believers after death advance in the holy life, 
and make progress in sanctification until they attain Christ- 
likeness and perfect purity and holiness at His second advent, 


176 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


when body and soul are united in the resurrection, and the 
whole man for the first time attains complete redemption and 
glorification. Sanctification begins in justification and attains 
its end only in the glorification of the judgment day. 

My honored teacher and friend Dr. Dorner, now in the com¬ 
pany of the blessed, gave an orthodox statement when he said: 

“As for the pious, intercourse with the ungodly, to which they were 
subject on earth, ceases after death ; they suffer nothing more from them, 
not even temptation. The connection of believers with Christ is so inti¬ 
mate that death and Hades have no power over it. On the contrary 
death brings them an increase of freedom from temptations and disturb¬ 
ances, as well as of blessedness. For believers there is no more punish¬ 
ment, but there is growth, a further laying aside of defects, an invigora- 
tion through the greater nearness of the Lord which they may experience, 
and through the more lively hope of their consummation.” . . . “In 
this life, the realities of the sensuous world are the objects of sight, the 
spiritual world is the object of faith. Then, when the physical side is 
wanting to the spirit, these poles will be reversed. To the departed 
spirits the spiritual world, whether in good or evil, will appear to be the 
real existence resting on immediate evidence. Since, then, such internal 
soul-life unveils the ground of the soul more openly, the retiring into 
self has for believers the effect of purifying and educating. It serves to 
obliterate all stains, to harmonize the whole inner being, in keeping 
with the good disposition brought over from the other life or later ac¬ 
quired ; thus there will be for them no idle waiting for the judgment but 
a progressing in knowledge, blessedness, and holiness, in communion 
with Christ and the heavenly company” (Dorner’s “Future State,” pp. 
106 - 108 ). 

This is the orthodox doctrine of progressive sanctification 
after death. It is the progressive sanctification after death of 
those whose sanctification has been begun in this world by re¬ 
generation and justification. It has nothing whatever to do with 
the doctrine of future probation. Those who hold future pro¬ 
bation may believe this doctrine or they may not believe it; for 
that doctrine has to do with the regeneration and justification 
after death of those who leave this world impenitent, unjusti¬ 
fied, and unregenerate. This doctrine I have never taught. 

When I indorse the doctrine of Dorner as regards the pro¬ 
gressive sanctification. of believers after death, that does not 
imply that I hold with him that those who die impenitent here 
and go to the world of the lost may yet be redeemed from their 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


177 


lost condition in the Middle State. Many holy and wise men 
hold that doctrine, and God forbid that I or any other should 
challenge their right to their opinion. O that I could agree with 
them! I would gladly make many sacrifices if I could honestly 
indulge in such a comfortable hope. But I do not, I cannot. 
I exercise my right in disclaiming this opinion, and I also ex¬ 
ercise my right of Christian charity in refusing to condemn 
them as enemies of Christ on account of it. 

The doctrine of progressive sanctification after death raises 
many important and difficult questions with regard to the 
Middle State, which I am no more bound to answer than are 
others. I have stated my views so far as I see my way and no 
farther. I see that believers enter the Middle State imperfect, 
but they are cleansed by the blood of Christ from all sin, and 
are therefore sinless. They are justified by the grace of God, and 
are therefore guiltless; they are by the immediate influence of 
the divine Spirit raised to a higher and nobler life and more 
blessed experience of redemption. But so soon as the redeemed 
soul begins its active practice, conduct, and service in the 
Middle State the question presses itself upon us what that con¬ 
duct, practice, and service will be. Will it be immediately after 
and forever perfectly holy, or will there still remain some degree 
of imperfection in their practice of true holiness? To those 
whose ideas of holiness are low, and measured only by inno¬ 
cence, holy intention, and resolution, or who think of human 
models of a holy life, it may not seem unnatural that believers 
should at once become alike perfect in holiness and that their 
practice of true holiness should be invariably free from imper¬ 
fections of any kind. But to that man who considers how 
weak and imperfect the greatest saints and martyrs have been 
when they left this world; how far from perfection the best of 
our friends have been when they left us; and then compare 
them with the sublime ideals of perfect likeness to the pure 
and holy Jesus, entire likeness to God the Father in perfect 
conduct, it will seem incredible that the man who leaves this 
world so imperfect should in a moment of time leap to this 
perfection of practice. We need some very clear and express 
teaching in Holy Scripture to justify such a belief. And we 
have it not. 

12 


178 THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

It is to be feared that those who are thinking of immediate 
sanctification at death are not thinking of the sanctification set 
forth in Scripture; but of a merely negative sanctification, such 
as consists in the absence of positive sin. Sanctification em¬ 
braces this as one of its elements certainly, but Christian sanc¬ 
tification is vastly more than this—it is the positive attainment 
of perfect practice. It is not only the non-commission of sin; 
it is not only the doing of holy deeds under favorable circum¬ 
stances; it is not merely the accumulation of holy strength, 
purpose, resolution, and character such as make it easy to re¬ 
sist sin; but it is vastly more than that—it is the attainment 
of the masterful experience and practice of Jesus Christ, so that 
the saint rises superior to every temptation or any possibility 
of temptation; and attains such a height of Christlikeness and 
Godlikeness that it will be absolutely impossible for him to com¬ 
mit sin, so to say, as impossible as for Christ to be stained with 
guilt or for God to commit iniquity, and in which the entire 
character, conduct, and practice are as perfectly holy as the 
character and conduct of God, pure as Christ is pure, perfect as 
God is perfect. Does any one suppose that such purity, such 
perfection, can be gained in the moment of death? Such a 
sanctification is the goal of that progressive sanctification that 
begins with regeneration in this life and is carried on until the 
•resurrection and the judgment day. 

The doctrine that has been unfolded removes difficulties from 
many other doctrines, (a) It enables us first to understand 
the doctrine of the universal salvation of infants and incapables. 
It seems most probable that the God of all grace begins their 
redemption in this world by an act of regeneration, takes it up 
when they die at that point, and carries it on in the Middle 
State through all the subsequent steps of sanctification. Dr. 
Strong, the eminent Baptist divine, says: 

“Since there is no evidence that children dying in infancy are regen¬ 
erated prior to death, either with or without the use of external means, 
it seems most probable that the work of regeneration may be performed 
by the Spirit in connection with the infant soul’s first view of Christ in 
the other world” (A. H. Strong’s “Systematic Theology,” p. 357. Roch¬ 
ester, 1886). 

I do not share Dr. Strong’s opinion, and yet I decline to say 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


179 


that he is heterodox; for the reason that this is a question of 
speculative theory to which the Bible gives us no decisive 
answer. I prefer to think of children as the sweet singer 
Ephraim the Syrian thinks of them, when he sings: 

“ Our God, to thee sweet praises rise 
From youthful lips in Paradise; 

From boys fair robed in spotless white, 

And nourished in the courts of light. 

In arbors they, where soft and low 
The blessed streams of light do flow: 

And Gabriel, a shepherd strong, 

Doth gently guide their flocks along. 

There honors higher and more fair 
Than those of saints and virgins are; 

God’s sons are they on that far coast, 

And nurselings of the Holy Ghost. ” * 

How can we think of such a mechanical act, such a magical 
change, as the transformation of a new-born heathen babe into 
the perfect likeness of Jesus Christ in the very moment of 
death? Ho passage of Holy Scripture teaches such a doctrine. 
(b) This doctrine of progressive sanctification after death also re¬ 
lieves the doctrine of the salvation of some of the heathen and 
of the heathen world. We can now see that those who have 
been enlightened by the Logos and born again of the Holy 
Spirit, among any of the religions of the world, having the root 
of the matter in them, the vital tie of union with the Deity, 
enter the Middle State, where they enjoy all the training they 
need for their progressive sanctification. Israel was able to do 
his mediatorial work for the nations only imperfectly in this 
world. It seems probable that Israel has ever carried on that 
mediatorial work as the religious teacher of mankind, when the 
patriarchs and prophets, the sages and the singers received 
the pious heathen into the school of holiness that lay beyond the 
grave. And so it is with the ministry of the Church. The 
Church has only in part carried on its ministry in this world. 
Its greatest ministry has ever been in the Middle State, in train¬ 
ing the departed babes and pious heathen in the holiness and 

* See article “ Infant Salvation, ” by G. L. Prentiss, “ Presbyterian Re¬ 
view, ” iv., pp. 569 seq. 




180 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


blessedness of the heavenly state. As our Lord descended into 
Hades to preach the gospel there, so the ancient Church conceived 
the apostles and teachers as carrying on His work. There is an 
apostolic succession of ministry which is not confined to this 
earth, but embraces in its redemptive scope the realm of the 
living and the dead, as Christ is the king and judge of the liv¬ 
ing and the dead, and His Church is composed of the living 
and the dead. 

I believe that this doctrine of progressive sanctification after 
death is of great practical importance. 

(a) It fills up the Middle State for us with an attractive, 
industrious, holy life, a progress in grace, in knowledge, in 
holiness, in all perfections. We realize that our departed 
friends are not asleep, but awake in the most active of lives. 
We see our babes growing in the divine life. We see our be¬ 
loved in the companionship of prophets and apostles, of saints 
and martyrs, and of the Holy Jesus. We know that they have 
not forgotten us, that they are praying for us, and are waiting 
to welcome us into the world of the redeemed. Death loses its 
terrors—and becomes only a gatev ay into a better country, into 
a brighter and purer life. 

(b) It incites to holy endeavor. The doctrine of immediate 
sanctification at death cuts the nerves of Christian endeavor 
and dries the sap of holy activity. What is the use, says the 
sluggish soul, in my striving so hard for holiness, when I shall 
receive it all in an instant whatever my life has been? All I 
need is pardon, to get into the kingdom at the eleventh hour. 
If I can only crawl through just at the moment the gate of 
death creaks on its hinges, I shall be as holy and as blessed as 
the greatest martyr and the most self-sacrificing of missionaries. 

No such doctrine was known to the martyr age of the Church. 
Those who hold such views are not the stuff martyrs are made 
of. There would have been no martyrs, there would have been 
no Church, if Christianity had built on such a foundation. 
Those who, with Paul and John, keep their eyes fixed upon the 
perfection of God, the likeness of Christ, and make it their one 
aim, their one hope, to attain that perfection and likeness at 
the resurrection and the advent—those will purify themselves 
in this world that they may enter the next world with as great 


PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION AFTER DEATH 


181 


an advancement as possible. For if there are grades of service 
and advancement here, there will be still greater differences 
of grade there; and the honors of heaven will be apportioned in 
accordance with the self-sacrificing ministry of earth. The holy 
deeds done in the body are the sacred nucleus of the holy prac¬ 
tice of the Middle State. 

The doctrine of progressive sanctification is in accordance 
with the laws that God has established in the ethical constitu¬ 
tion of man. The conscience speaks the categorical imperative 
in the first dawn of the moral consciousness, and it pronounces 
its decision in the light of the training that men receive in their 
successive stages of advancement in morals. 

The Church and the Bible give their potent aid to the con¬ 
science in the ethical elevation of humanity. It is always, 
everywhere, and in every variety of form and education, a 
training. Shall all this ethical training cease at death, all the 
varied stages of progress in the different periods of life, of 
culture, of racial and national advancement, be reduced to a 
common level and made of none effect, by a mighty transfor¬ 
mation that will deal with the race, father and child, mother 
and babe, master and scholar, self-sacrificing missionary and 
pagan convert, the devoted evangelist and the thief and mur¬ 
derer turning in his last hour to Christ from the shadow of the 
gallows—all as one undistinguishable mass? Such a doctrine 
strikes a deadly blow at the moral nature of man, the ethical 
constitution of society, the historic training of our race, and the 
moral government of God. 

The doctrine of progressive sanctification after death har¬ 
monizes Christian faith with Christian ethics, and both of 
these with the ethics of humanity and the ethics of God. It 
enables us to comprehend the whole life of man, the whole his¬ 
tory of our race from its first creation until the day of doom, 
and all the acts of God in creation and providence, under one 
grand conception, the divine sanctification of man. 

I have gone over all the Charges made against the doctrines 
set forth in my Inaugural Address. I have shown that the 
doctrines taught by me are not contrary to the Westminster 
Confession, but that they are in accord therewith; that they are 


182 


THE DEFENCE OF PROFESSOR BRIGGS 


not irreconcilable with the Scriptures, but are the product of 
a comprehensive study of the Scriptures. They set forth the 
doctrines of the Bible, which have been made of none effect 
by the traditions of men. It is now for the Presbytery of 
New York to make its decision. I pray God you may make no 
mistake, but that you may stand firmly by the Word of God 
and the Constitution of our Church and so deliver a righteous 
verdict. 


THE DEFENCE 



PROFESSOR BRIGGS 

BEFORE 

THE PRESBYTERY OF YEW YORK 


December IS, Ilf, 15, and 19, 1892 


NEW YORK 

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 

1892 










*ly:- 




'. * >U- 

f • * ■ 


« « 



' j s 


• f ■• ' .\ V. 


v-> 







/ ? : iL. 




' ••■V: - 




l 



i 























































































































































































' • 



















































































































































































































i - "o > ;(r * , 

•°* *°° t . 
k -***• ^ 


• 4 ? ,-o-. * v* % 4>- ,*r>. 

•jSa&5f s * A" \. *Wv 'v ^ •.nMP 
^ * 7 ? 5 t> .&* %. '•••• ,<v ( „ ^'^vvT* 

5^W|* # C •» ^ Deacidified us 

O* <T go|||fKSS& 4 ^O jv ® Neutralizing a 

3j§«p> * ^ O * * 0 v* * ^^jyyjf^p Treatment Da 


*b V 

y:m>^/:m 



♦ O, 

K\ ^ » 


oK 




- *b K : 

„ j. 0 ^. ’. 

v *.y j> v ■•.-.*• 




• * 





«•#, 


.v *« 
V 


>. — r |?!* ,! ?-^r * C,^ ^JV. 9 » 4 » . ° * v 

*. J *^y (f *b •.?,*. 4 a <•. ^JtT* .0* ^ * 

• <* ** „❖ . *#* 0 A % »»■•« ■<>. , 0 * ..‘Af« *o, 

v% «£ A° *j 6$5^T* *V V ♦V5/tf%z_% W 



: . 

; <h ©* : 
♦♦ *r - 

* • *jr °<u 
ft r 



^V 

^v* : — ;< <v" ~b % ^V* V" v : * v ... v~ 

*, ^O A % ***•♦ *% .(y % *'*y* o ft .°J^** ^ 



^ JS 


4 * 


0 *$’ 

♦ ^ % * 


„ % c 
• ‘ 

'*> ^ ^'.y ** 



* - o- <> V % A? 

♦axes A* ^ ^ *iS§i^* * 

• ^ iwi; ^ 



v --ram* & ^ *yw* v' ^ -+ymrs r ft j ^ 

♦7‘57T* v # o,,< a 4- '•*• a & ^ 

® <s> n4 .n# # ^b A v o o :^ ^ ,cr t * v A!* 

w% ^ . o° * 4 ^ ^y^tefe V * 0 4 afl^:* 


• 






- * 6 ^ 

°o ^o° 'V*"’ 


*+$ 







°o .o 9 a 0 ” 

,o r *’ 

> *$*>. a 4 *■ A ? 

• ^ ♦, 

e vP V • 




^ °oW3§Sy* ft* %> • EB* JF *k °yg%vy ^ v ^ V% 

^ *'°* * * s^ *'••** % ys> * * 4 ^ ^ *' 

??■?« ■o ft • C ° v 3 ' ^ 


;• b 

° # A 0 ^ ft' ... ^ 

r *i*^. .V % 5 i^. 

.^4 *j 






















































